Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1092/2011

Kamlesh Rani W/o Gian Chand Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asst.Executive Engineer,Sub Urban Division,UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Neera Jain

03 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No.1092 of 2011.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 20.10.2011

                                                                                          Date of decision: 03.05.2016

Smt. Kamlesh Rani aged about 65 years wife of Shri Gian Chand Verma, resident of # 1098, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Asst. Executive Engineer (OP) Sub Urban Sub Division, UHBVNL, Buria Gate, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Uttriya Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula through its Chairman.                                                                     

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  …Respondents.

 

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:            Sh. G.C.Verma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

                         Sh. P.K.Verma, Advocate, counsel for Respondents.               

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Smt. Kamlsh Rani has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986. 

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that electricity connection bearing account No. Y32/JU-214563 stands in the name of complainant at her residence bearing No. 1098, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri and she is paying the electricity bills regularly and noting is due against her. The electricity meter in question is running very fast from the very beginning and in this connection, the complainant had also made number of complaints with the OPs but all in vain. Recently OPs sent a bill bearing No. 4946 dated 26.09.2011 for an excessive amount of Rs. 14465/- which was deposited by the complainant under protest vide cheque No. 046232 dated 05.10.2011 and made a complaint in writing dated 10.10.2011 to Op No.1 for conducting the enquiry as the meter is running very fast but till date OPs have not taken any action. The complainant had paid so many excessive bills from the month of January 2010 to 26.09.2011 detail of which is mentioned in para No.6 of the complaint which are likely to be corrected. The act and conduct on the part of the OPs clearly amount to negligence and deficiency in service as the complainant has suffered great mental agony and harassment. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and on merit all the allegations mentioned in the complaint have been denied. However, it has been admitted that OPs sent a bill bearing No. 4946 dated 26.09.2011 for amounting to Rs. 14465/- for the consumption of 2792 units used by the complainant in the month of August 2011 and September 2011. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint as there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of bill dated 26.9.2011 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of cheque of Rs. 14465/- dated 05.10.2011 as Annexure C-2, Photo copies of bills from 26.01.2010 to 26.07.2011 as Annexure C-3 to C-11, Photo copy of judgment passed in CC No. 563 of 2001 as Annexure C-12, Photo copy of Bill for the month of May 2012 as Annexure C-13, photo copy of bill dated 25.03.2012 as Annexure C-14, Photo copy of Bill dated 30.01.2012 as Annexure C-15, Photo copy of letter dated 6.8.2012 as Annexure C-16, Photo copy of judgment passed in CC No. 233 of 2006 as Annexure C-17, Photo copy of bill dated 24.07.2012 as Annexure C-18 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence Photo copy of ledger as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     The only version of the complainant is that the electric meter in question installed in her premises is running fast from the very beginning and in this connection, she had already made so many complaints to the OPs but till date nothing has been done on behalf of the OPs. Lastly prayed for refund the excess amount charged vide electricity bills since 26.01.2010 to 26.09.2011 (Annexure C-1, C-3 to C-11) including last bill which was amounting to Rs. 14465/- bearing No. 4946 dated 26.09.2011(Annexure C-1).

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs hotly argued at length that impugned bill has been correctly issued as per actual consumption to the complainant as she has used 2792 units in the month of August and September 2011 and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint being false and frivolous.

9.                     We have perused the copy of ledger (Annexure R-1), from which it is evident that the consumption of the electricity meter of the complainant remains between 1000 to 1500 units for winter season and 2000 to 2500 in summer season continuously from the last 2 years i.e. from January 2010 to November 2011. Meaning thereby that there was no highly fluctuations in the meter reading of the complainant. As per the version of the complainant she has moved so many applications to the OPs Nigam but not a single copy of that application has been filed by the complainant to prove her case. One application dated 6.8.2012 (Annexure C-16) has been placed on file, however, this application is after thought as the same has been filed after filing of the complaint i.e. on 06.08.2012 whereas the present complaint has been filed on 20.10.2011. Further, the learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the copy of judgments in CC No. 563/2001 and CC No. 233/2006 but that judgments are not helpful in the present case.  As the facts of that judgments were different from the facts of the present complaint. Moreover, the complainant has not filed any cogent evident to prove that the meter in question of the complainant was running fast in the present complaint. No such report of any mechanic or electric inspector has been placed on file to prove the fact that meter in question is running fast. Mere filing of the electricity bills (Annexure C-1, C-3 to C-11) it cannot be presumed that meter in question was running fast and the complainant is entitled to get the refund of excess amount charged by the OPs. It is not the case of the complainant that the electric meter of the complainant remained dead or the bills were being sent on average basis.

10.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the complainant has totally failed to prove her case and without any documentary evidence, we cannot hold that the meter in question was running fast and the complainant is entitled to get refund of the excess amount, if any, charged by the Ops. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

11.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced in open court.03.05.2016.           

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.