BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No.445 of 2011
Date of Instt. 25.7.2011
Date of decision: 25.02.2015
Rajan Mittal son of Sh.Tara Chand resident of House No.15, Jarnailly Colony, Karnal.
……..Complainant.
Vs.
1.AEE, UHBVN Limited, City Division, near Bus stand, Karnal.
2.UHBVN Limited, through its Managing Director, Sector 6, Panchkula, Haryana.
.
…..Opposite Parties.
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.
Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma ……Member.
Argued by:- Sh.R.K.Sharma Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Sanjeev Kamboj Advocate for the Ops.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that he is consumer qua the OPs vide electricity meter bearing account NO.LC36-2783 F. The complainant received the bill for the period from Rs.25.4.2011 to 25.6.2011 amounting to Rs.19,948/- in which the amount of Rs.11,216/- has been shown as sundry charges which is illegal and void. The complainant asked the OP to withdraw the said illegal demand but in vain. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops alleging deficiency in services and has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw the said illegal demand of Rs.11,216/- and to pay compensation for the harassment caused to him and also the litigation expenses. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint alongwith certain other documents.
2. On notice the Ops appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complainant has no loucs standi to file the present complaint; that the present complaint was not legally maintainable; that the present complaint was an abuse of the process of law and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and to try the present complaint.
On merits, it was contended that in the impugned bill the amount of Rs.11216/- has been charged as sundry charges because the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was burnt and the same was replaced vide MCO No.69/2752 and after the change of the meter the average of the account of the complainant was taken from 7/2009 to 1/2010 and then the account of the complainant was overhauled and an amount of R s.11216/- was imposed upon the complainant and that amount was credited in the account of the complainant. SDO concerned has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contentions made in the written statement.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
4. Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it emerges that the complainant is having electricity connection bearing account NO.LC36-2783 F. The complainant received the bill for the period from Rs.25.4.2011 to 25.6.2011 amounting to Rs.19,948/- in which the amount of Rs.11,216/- has been shown as sundry charges which is illegal and void. The complainant asked the OPs to withdraw the said illegal demand but in vain.
However, as per the contention of the OPs the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was burnt and the same was replaced vide MCO No.69/2752 and after the change of the meter the average of the account of the complainant was taken from 7/2009 to 1/2010 and then the account of the complainant was overhauled and an amount of Rs.11216/- was imposed upon the complainant and that amount was credited in the account of the complainant.
5. However, from the facts and circumstances it emerges that after the change of the meter of the complainant average of the energy consumption was taken from 7/2009 to 1/2010 and the account of the complainant was over hauled. The learned counsel for the complainant has failed to point out that there was any defect in calculating the average charges. Therefore, in the absence of any such evidence, it can not be held that there was any deficiency in services on the part of the Ops in overhauling the account of the complainant by taking average consumption from 7/2009 to 1/2010.
6. Therefore, as a sequel to our above discussion, we dismiss the present complaint. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated: 25.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
Argued by:- Sh.R.K.Sharma Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Sanjeev Kamboj Advocate for the Ops.
Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 25.2.2015.
Announced
dated: 23.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
Argued by:- Sh.R.K.Sharma Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Sanjeev Kamboj Advocate for the Ops.
Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
.
Announced
dated: 25.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
