Haryana

StateCommission

A/1114/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIRBAL AHLAWAT - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

12 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1114 of 2015

Date of Institution:        24.12.2015

Date of Decision :        12.04.2016

 

1.     The Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Rohtak.

2.     Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation, Sub Division No.1, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Rohtak.

3.     The Chief Auditor, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Rohtak.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Birbal Ahlawat s/o Sh. Sadhu Ram, Resident of House No.5/10, Jasbir Colony, Rohtak.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Ms. Alka Joshi, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Vivek Suri, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated November 6^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.417 of 2014.

2.      Birbal Ahlawat-complainant (respondent herein) filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that he obtained domestic electric connection bearing account No.TD-2530, from Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘UHBVNL’)-Opposite Parties and had been paying the bills regularly despite the fact that the meter was running fast. He complained to the UHBVNL on November 6^th and 16^th, 2009 but to no avail. Legal notice dated January 6^th, 2010 was also sent to the UHBVNL. The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service for not replacing the meter. The said complaint was decided on May 3^rd, 2011 and the UHBVNL was directed to replace the meter and rectify the bill on the basis of consumption of electric energy recorded in the new meter, however the UHBVNL did not replace the meter. The UHBVNL sent the bills from December 2013 amounting to Rs.44,150/- on 14.02.2014; Rs.50,251/- on 09.06.2014; Rs.141838/- on 12.08.2014 and Rs.153145/- on 11.10.2014. The complainant approached the UHBVNL and also deposited Rs.8,000/- on 06.05.2014 and Rs.10,000/- on 10.11.2014 to avoid disconnection. UHBVNL failing to do needful, the instant complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking direction to the UHBVNL to withdraw the disputed bills, replace the meter and pay compensation etc.

3.      The UHBVNL-opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply. It was pleaded that the meter being defective, the complainant was charged on average basis i.e. 600 units. However, later on when the Internal Audit Department of the UHBVNL overhauled the account of the complainant, a sum of Rs.1,32,799/- was found payable and after deducting Rs.39,652.54 calculated by the private audit, the amount payable came to Rs.93,146/-. Denying the averments of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum accepted complaint directing the UHBVNL-Opposite Parties, as under:-

“….it is directed that opposite parties shall not recover the amount of Rs.146058/- from the complainant and the amount, if any, has already been deposited by the complainant on account of alleged arrear, the same shall be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till its actual realization. Opposite parties shall also pay a sum of Rs.1500/- 9Rupees one thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied maximum within one month from the date of decision.”

5.      Indisputably, the meter of the complainant was not running proper and the UHBVNL sent the bills from March , 2011 to June, 2012 on average basis i.e. 600 units every time. The complainant made representations (Exhibit C4 to C-11) to the UHBVNL regarding the excessive bills but since the UHBVNL did not pay any heed, the bills were paid under protest. The Internal Audit Department of UHBVNL through private agency calculated the units consumed by the complainant during the period the meter remained defective. As per report of the audit party, the amount of Rs.39,562.54 was payable by the complainant on average basis. Even thereafter, the UHBVNL sent bill dated 2^nd June, 2014 for Rs.82,434/-. The complainant made representation and the same was sent to the Chief Auditor UHBVNL, Rohtak. It was replied vide letter Exhibit C-17 that the report of the audit party was correct and there was no need to overhaul the account again. Rather action has been recommended against the official who did not replace the defective meter for more than six months. Since, the complainant had already paid the bills to the UHBVNL more than the amount calculated by the audit party, therefore, the UHBVNL could not raise demand for more money. In view of this, the District Forum has rightly held that the UHBVNL not entitled to claim the impugned amount of Rs.1,46,058/- (Exhibit C-19) from the complainant.

6.      Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission does not find any illegality in the order of the District Forum. Hence, finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 12.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL