Haryana

StateCommission

A/132/2015

UHBNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALWAN - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

26 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                             

First Appeal No.132 of 2015

Date of Institution: 09.02.2015      Date of Decision:26.02.2016

 

1.         SDO,Sub Urban, Sub division No.1, UHBVNL, Kaithal.

2.         Xen ‘OP’, UHBVNL, Kaithal.

2.         UHBVNL, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its Secretary.

     …..Appellants

                                                Versus

 

Balwan aged 40 years son of Sh.Chap Singh, R/o Village Manas, Tehsil & District Kaithal.

         …..Respondent

 

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

 

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

Mr.Amandeep Singh, Advocate counsel for the  respondent.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. SDO, Sub Urban, Sub Division No.1 Uttar Haryana Bijali Vitran Nigam Ltd. (DHBVNL), Kaithal and Anr. Appellants are in appeal against the Order dated 16.01.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Kaithal, whereby the complaint of Balwan - Complainant has been allowed against them. The learned District Forum has directed the OPs to overhaul the account of the complainant and adjust all the paid bills in accordance with the average of meter reading of succeeding six months from the date of MCO of third meter i.e. 6/2012, as the second meter was burnt on 21.05.2012.
2. In brief, the complainant is a consumer of OPs vide electricity connection No.SP-33A and was running Atta Chakki for his livelihood. On 27.10.2010, vide MCO No.70/124 the meter was changed and OP installed a new meter. In the bill for the month of August, 2011 there was an old reading of 1856, but in the bill for the month of September, 2011, the new reading was shown as 19487. This was a case of jumping of meter as per the bill issued in the month of September, 2011 in which the consumption was reported as 17631/3 units. The complainant requested for the correction of the bill, but the OPs refused to do so.
3. Justifying their action, the OPs issued a bill of Rs.82957/- to the complainant in the month of September, 2011 in which Rs.8290/- were shown as balance amount alongwith the current bill. This bill was issued as per actual consumption after adjusting the average charge of Rs.11,658/-. However, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas raised by the OPs and partly accepted the complaint vide order dated 16.01.2015 by directing them to overhaul the account of the complainant.

4.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The stand taken by the OPs has not been substantiated by any documentary evidence, as they have failed to prove that the meter of the complainant was got tested by some Lab. and the same was found O.K. Rather, on the other hand, the complainant has been repeatedly requesting for the checking of the meter as the reading was jumping considerably. Further, the plea raised by the OPs that the complainant was running the Atta Chakki for commercial purpose is not convincing at all, as the complainant has been running the same for his own livelihood. Moreover, it was the duty of the OPs to get the meter tested from well reputed Government or Private Lab. to find actual jumping of the meter or otherwise. If they did not have the facility of testing the meter readily available, the complainant can not be blamed in this regard. All these circumstances go to prove that there was in fact jumping of the meter resulting into shooting up its reading.

6.

 

February 26th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.