Haryana

Sonipat

CC/316/2015

Ghanshyam Dass Garg S/o Late Bansi Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

AEE SDO UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Ravi Shanker Garg & Ashish Garg

06 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

Complaint No.316 of 2015

Instituted on: 01.09.2015                 

Date of order: 06.05.2016

 

Ghanshyam Dass Garg s/o late Sh. Banarshi Dass, r/o 654/23, Aggarsain Nagar, near post office, Gurmandi, Rohtak road, Sonepat.

…Complainant.           Versus

AEE/SDO UHBVN Ltd. Industrial Area Sub Divn. Indra Colony, Sonepat.

                                      …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.Ashish Garg, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.SK Dahiya, Adv. for respondent.

 

Before-  Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-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 account no.M-285 which stands in the name of his father late Sh. Banarsi Dass/Bansi Dass.  The complainant has alleged that in the month of 1/2015, the respondent has raised the bill dated 26.1.2015 for Rs.19674/- for 2586 units.  The complainant moved an application dated 4.2.2015 to the respondent for installation of parallel meter and for replacement of defective meter.  On 5.2.2015, Sh. Jagdeep JE alongwith other officials came to the premises and inspected the meter and noted down the reading as 63556 and as per direction of the Nigam, the complainant has purchased new electricity meter on 6.2.2015 and paid the amount of Rs.300/- vide receipt dated 6.2.2015 as MTO charges.  On 9.2.2015, the official of the nigam came to the house of the complainant and installed the parallel meter and at the time of installing the parallel meter, the official of the nigam has noted the meter reading of old meter as on 9.2.2015 as 64112 and new meter reading as 01 and on 9.3.2015 old meter reading as 68438 and new meter reading as 385 and similarly on 3.4.2015, old meter reading was 72891 and new meter reading as 725. So, from 9.2.2015 till 3.4.2015, there was old meter reading as 8779 units and new meter showed the reading as 725 units.  On 3.4.2015, defective old meter was removed and new meter was permanently installed.  In the month of 4/2015, bill dt. 11.4.2015 for Rs.87,776/- was issued to the complainant.   In the month of 6/2015, another bill of Rs.42871/- was issued to the complainant for the period 7.3.23015 to 22.4.2015 for 46 days for consumption of 5510 units.  In the month of 8/15, the complainant received the bill dated 14.8.2015 for Rs.53029/-.  The complainant requested the respondent to accept the bill of Rs.53029/- under protest, but the respondent has refused to accept the same.   The complainant has duly paid three bills for Rs.63594/- for the month of 7/14, 9/14 and 11/14.  As per the present disputed bill, electricity units consumption is now shown as 5968 for the period 9.2.2015 to 7.7.2015 i.e. for five months.   The complainant is only liable to make the payment for the units consumed as per the reading shown by the new meter for the period 09.02.2015 to 07.07.2015 for which the complainant has already made the payment of Rs.5198/- on 30.6.2015.  The complainant is also entitled for the adjustment of Rs.4150/- alongwith interest.  The complainant has requested the respondent to do the needful in the matter, but of no avail and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent has appeared and has submitted that the complainant has filed an application before the respondent regarding running of fast meter and in the application current reading 63182 has been mentioned and the respondent accept the application and another meter was installed to check the fastness of the meter of the complainant and it was found that the meter was running fast 1109% and the bill of the complainant was rectified by the respondent according to the fastness of the meter.   The respondent has reduced the unit from the account of the complainant and Rs.89,243/- has been adjusted in the account of the complainant.  The respondent can revise and rectify the bill only for 6 months.  The respondent has also rectified the unit from 18.6.2015 to 1.7.2015 and Rs.37,673/- was also refunded to the complainant and the said amount has also been adjusted in the complainant’s account.  The respondent in total has refunded the amount of Rs.1,26,916/- to the complainant and this fact has been  suppressed by the complainant. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation because there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and 3 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. counsel for both the parties and have perused the entire relevant documents available on the case file very carefully and minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the complainant has filed an application before the respondent regarding running of fast meter and in the application current reading 63182 has been mentioned and the respondent accept the application and another meter was installed to check the fastness of the meter of the complainant and it was found that the meter was running fast 1109% and the bill of the complainant was rectified by the respondent according to the fastness of the meter.   The respondent has reduced the unit from the account of the complainant and Rs.89,243/- has been adjusted in the account of the complainant.  The respondent can revise and rectify the bill only for 6 months.  The respondent has also rectified the unit from 18.6.2015 to 1.7.2015 and Rs.37,673/- was also refunded to the complainant and the said amount has also been adjusted in the complainant’s account.  The respondent in total has refunded the amount of Rs.1,26,916/- to the complainant and this fact has been  suppressed by the complainant. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation because there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

                        During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant has made a statement that the respondent has adjusted the amount of Rs.38653/- being the excess amount paid by the complainant in earlier bills and also adjusted the amount of Rs.4150/- paid by the complainant vide receipt no.063688 dated 15.7.2010 pertaining to enhancement of load and thus, the main grievance of the complainant is satisfied except the claim of interest on Rs.4150/- from the date of deposit till its adjustment.

          In our view, the complainant is entitled to get interest on the amount of Rs.4150/- at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of its deposit till its adjustment.    It is also directed to the respondent to adjust the amount of interest in the future bills of the complainant.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed partly.

Certified copy of this order be provided to

both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

Prabha Wati Member                Nagender Singh

DCDRF SNP                     President, DCDRF, SNP.

ANNOUNCED 06.05.2016