Haryana

StateCommission

A/545/2017

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALBIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

12 Mar 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.545 of 2017

Date of Institution:08.05.2017

Date of Decision: 12.03.2018

 

1.      SDO OP Sub Division (East), UHBVNL, Ambala City, Badshahi Bagh colony, near District & Sessions Courts, Ambala City.

2.      UHBVNL through Executive Engineer Operation Engineer, Operation, Division, Ambala City, UHBVNL, Ambala.

     …..Appellants

                                                Versus

 

 

Balbir Singh S/o Sh.S.Nagina, R/o H.No.1505/B-11, Badshahi Bagh, Ambala City.

         …..Respondent

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.B.D.Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.R.C.Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division (East), UHBVNL and Anr.– OPs are in appeal against the Order dated 24.10.2016, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Ambala, whereby the complaint of Balbir  Singh has been allowed by directing the OP to refund or adjust the amount of Rs.28,899/- with interest at the rate of Rs.12% from the date of deposit i.e.18.08.2012 till its realization alongwith Rs.3000/-.
2. Briefly stated, the complainant was having a connection account No.WW10-2346-A/C3-1453 and was paying the bills regularly. But on 03.08.2012, the OPs-UHBVNL sent a  bill for Rs.28,899/- on account  of sundary charges without any explanation, which the complainant duly paid under protest. Later,  he represented for the refund of the aforesaid amount, but when OPs did not refund the same, he approached the District Forum for the redressal of his grievance.
3. OPs in their reply pleaded that the meter of the complainant was found to be slow by 35.43% when checked by  YMPL- a Company to which UHBVN had outsourced the joint of checking the accuracy of the meters of its consumers. They further pleaded that it was the case of loss of revenue as the complainant had been paying the bills for the just 64.57% of the actual consumption of the electricity by him and a sum of Rs.28,502/- was debited in the account of the complainant to make good the loss suffered by the OPs on account of consumption of electricity by the complainant for a period starting from February 2011 to April, 2012. Hence, there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Despite all this, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint on 24.10.2016 by granting the aforesaid relief to the complainant.

4. Against the impugned Order, the OP/appellant have come up in appeal before us by mainly reiterating the same pleas as already raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record, from the perusal whereof, the following salient facts stand established:-

1. The complainant had been paying the regular bills regularly and it was suddenly for the first time that the bill in dispute was sent to him by the OPs to the tune of Rs.28,899/-.
2. Even though, there was no detailed explanation for such high amount yet the complainant paid the aforesaid bill under protest.
3. The stand  taken by the OP that they got the meter checked by some outside agency with  whom they had entered into an agreement for outsourcing etc. was neither brought to the notice of the complainant nor was he at any stage associated with the same.
4. Even a simple notice or intimation regarding the checking of meter, time and place etc. was issued to the complainant and the and the so called inspection of the meter was in his absence.
5. Finally, the sundary charges report produced by the OPs did not depict that the meter in question was running slow or from which period to which period.

 

            Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, conclusion, the view  taken by the learned District Forum that there was a complete deficiency in service on the part of OPs and their demand of Rs.28,899/- made suddenly was untenable in law. We fully endorse the findings of the learned District Forum and uphold its  decision. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 

5.         The statutory amount of Rs.1500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

March 09th, 2018

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.