Haryana

Sonipat

CC/30/2015

RAGHUBIR SINGH S/O MUNSHI RAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

ADO OP SUB DIVISION UHBVNL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SANJAY KANKARWAL

29 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                Complaint No.30 of 2015

Instituted on: 02.02.2015                                                     

Date of order:01.03.2016 

 

 

Raghubir Singh son of Munshi Ram, r/o village Kundli, tehsil and Distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.          Versus

SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division UHBVN  Kundli, distt. Sonepat.

 

                                                                                                …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Sanjay Kankarwal Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Neeraj Malik, Advocate for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          Prabha Wati-Member.

           D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the consumer of the respondent vide old account no.RR-13-2686 and new account KU25-2117N. The complainant has received the bill for Rs.255165/- from theh respondent in which an amount of Rs.173044/- has been shown under the head of sundry charges.  The complainant has alleged the said bill to be wrong and illegal because he never used the electricity energy to such extent for which the said bill has been issued to the complainant.  It is further submitted that the meter of the complainant has become defective three times and prior to this, the respondent has changed the same in the year 2007, 2008 and 2009 and installed a new meter, which jumped at any time and is running very fast. The complainant has requested the respondent to change the same but of no use.  This wrongful act of the respondent has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.      In reply,  the respondent has submitted that  the complainant is not paying the electricity bills regularly as an amount of Rs.173061/- is outstanding against the complainant.  The respondent has issued the said bill to the complainant correctly and the complainant is legally liable to pay the same to the respondent.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.  

4.       Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that an amount of Rs.173061/- is outstanding against the complainant.  The said bill is legal and binding upon the rights of the complainant and the complainant is legally liable to pay the same to the respondent.

         As per document Ex.C4, the respondent has overhauled the account of the complainant on 16.5.2012 and through his half margin report, the respondent overhauled the account of the complainant for the period from 4/07 to 2/08 and 8/0-8 to 10/09 after taking the base from 12/09 to 10/10.  This half margin report was prepared on 16.5.2012.  The respondent has placed on record some documents, but they have failed to produce any document to show that the respondent has ever demanded a sum of Rs.173061/- from the complainant in the year 2012.  The respondent straightaway and surprisingly have issued a letter to the complainant for depositing an amount of Rs.173061/-  vide memo no.7037 dated 15.9.2014. But in view of Section 56(2) of Indian Electricity Act, this demand of the respondent is wrong and illegal as no sum due from any consumer under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due.  Thus, it is held that the respondent has no legal right to recover or charge the amount of Rs.173061/- from the complainant.

         The second contention of the complainant is that the respondent has issued a bill after showing the consumption of 11079 units for the period w.e.f. 22.9.2014 to 22.11.2014.  In our view, the complainant is legally liable to pay the said bill to the respondent since there is no report available on record which may go to prove that the meter of the complainant was defective in any manner. 

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.

         Certified copy of this order he provided to both the parties free of cost.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati) (DV Rathi)            (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF, Member, DCDRF           President, DCDRF

Sonepat.      Sonepat.                Sonepat.

 

Announced 1.3.2016