Haryana

StateCommission

A/1297/2017

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALWINDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

SIKANDER BAKSHI

08 Feb 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No.1297 of 2017

Date of Institution:30.10.2017

                                                               Date of Decision: 08.02.2019

 

1.      Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited,  Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its MD.

2.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited,  through its Sub-Divisional Officer (Operation),City Sub-Division, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula.

3.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited,   through its Executive Engineer/Operation Division, Panchkula.

…..Appellants

Versus

 

1.      Balwinder Singh s/o Sh. Sh.Baldev Singh, R/o H.No.276, Defence Colony, Ambala Cantt.

          Second Address:-

          Balwinder Singh S/o Sh. Baldev Singh, R/o H.No.1, Police Lines, Moginand, Sector-25, Panchkula.

2.      Deputy Commissioner of Police, Panchkula.

                                      …..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:              Mr.Sikander Bakshi proxy counsel for Mr.N.K.Bajaj, Advocate for the appellants.

Respondents already ex parte.

 

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.

2.      The present appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 14.06.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (In short “District Forum”) vide which the complaint instituted by the complainant was allowed.

3.      Briefly stated, the fact of the case are that the complainant-Balwinder Singh was having electricity connection bearing account No.A27P553-1862K for domestic supply and he was paying the  electricity bills regularly. The complainant requested the Ops to check the meter as the faulty meter was showing excess units as in the bill dated 11.07.2014 the unit consumption was shown as 2141.  He deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- with the Ops and received another bill of Rs.92,570/- for 8515 units.  The complainant again requested the Ops to check the meter and O.Ps. removed the meter in absence of complainant and installed the new check meter.  He received another bill dated 11.11.2015 on the basis of checking meter reading and the unit consumption was shown as 927.   The O.ps. again illegally demanded Rs.1,04,749/-  and Rs.1,11,143/-  respectively from him.  The O.Ps. was not adjusted the previous amount.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.

4.      Notice being issued. Opposite parties (O.Ps.) contested the complaint and  it has been alleged in the written version that  O.ps. sent the bill of consumed units and the complainant did not pay the same.  The meter was replaced and same was sent to M&T lab where meter was found OK.    The complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- in the month of November 2014 with them.   The electric connection of the complainant was disconnected due to non-deposit of the bill of Rs.1,00,050/-.   As per record an amount of Rs.1,11,143/- was outstanding against the complainant till July 2016.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.

5.      After hearing both the parties, Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (In Short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 14.06.2017 and directed the Ops to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony  and harassment caused to the complainant  and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses awarded to the complainant.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps.-appellants have preferred this appeal.

7.      The argument have been advanced by Mr.Sikander Bakshi proxy counsel for Mr.N.K.Bajaj,  the  learned counsel for the appellants. With their kind assistance the entire records had been properly perused and examined. Vide order dated 22.03.2018 passed by this Commission, the respondents were  proceeded against ex parte.

8.      While addressing the arguments, it has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that  on the request of the complainant, the meter was replaced and same was sent to the M&T Lab for checking, where the meter was found OK.  The O.Ps. send the bill of consumed units, but, the complainant failed to deposited the outstanding amount of Rs.1,11,143/-.

9.      Since the meter of the complainant was not faulty as per the M&T lab report.  The bill of Rs.1,11,143/- issued against the complainant has rightly been issued by the O.Ps.  It is a public money and the complainant has not been making the outstanding amount of the bill raised by the department, inspite of the fact that period of more than three years had expired.  The meter was found to be in order and as such, no question of raising any illegal demand. 

10.    The learned District forum gravely and manifestly erred while allowing the complaint and passing orders. Hence, while accepting the appeal, the impugned order dated  14.06.2017 passed by the learned District Forum, Panchkula is set aside for all intents and purposes and the complaint is accordingly stands dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.12,500/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification.

 

February 08th, 2019                                                  Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                                                       Judicial Member                                                                                                                   Addl.Bench               

S.K.