BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 112 of 31.3.2010
Date of Institution : 31.3.2010
Date of Decision : 9.8.2016
Jaspal Singh son of Shri Bal Kishan Singh, resident of village Amritsar Kalan, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
- Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Managing Director at Hisar.
2. Executive Engineer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sub Urban Division, Sirsa.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.,
Ellenabad Sub Division, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. M.S.Sethi, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, complainant is the consumer of the Ops vide domestic electricity connection no. TE-23SE/0640 installed at his residential premises in village Amritsar Kalan. As alleged, in the year 2008, meter of the above connection become defective and complainant lodged a complaint with op no.3. Op no.3 got deposited Rs.740/- from the complainant as meter charges on 8.10.2008. Thereafter, in May 2009, Ops installed an old and defective meter as removed from the other consumer. Grievance of the complainant is that the changed meter was giving wrong readings. On report to the Ops, Op no.3 got installed the check meter parallel to the meter already installed. Complainant is receiving inflated bills since 5/2009 uptil the filing of present complaint. In this continuation, last bill no.4323 dt. 29.1.2010 was issued by the Ops demanding an amount of Rs.12250/- out of which Rs.10503/- has been claimed as arrears of previous bill, which is wrong. It is further alleged that the meter installed at the premises was burnt on 12.10.2009. On complainant’s application, burnt meter was checked by the Ops on 15.10.2009 but the Ops failed to change the same and bills are being sent on inflated bills. Ops also failed to give the result of check meter and to overhaul the account of the complainant on the basis of reading recorded by the check meter. Hence this complaint.
2. On notice, Ops appeared and filed their written version alleging that the meter installed at the premises of complainant was changed by the Ops as applied by the complainant as the meter was burnt. The complainant deposited the meter charges on 1.7.2008 and thereafter, the meter was issued on 5/2009. In the meantime, the MMC was charged from the complainant. The old reading was 2854 and new was 3090 and thus amount for 236 units was charged. Then in 7/2009, the old reading was 3090 and new reading was 3839 i.e. 749 units consumed. In 9/09, 868 units consumed, in 11/09 742 units were consumed. During that period, the complainant moved complaint that the meter is not working properly and thus a check meter was issued on 5.9.2009 and reading of original meter was 5169. The reading of both the meter i.e. check and original was the same and identical. Accordingly, complainant’s account was overhauled. Thereafter, complainant’s meter was burnt. Then as per consumption from 7/09 to 11/09 and taking the average of the previous bills, the bill of 445 units bi-months was sent to the complainant and on payment of said bill amount the account of the complainant will be overhauled as per reading. Remaining allegations of the complaint has been denied.
3. By way of evidence, complainant produced copy of receipt Ex.C1, copies of various bills and applications Ex.C2 to Ex.C31, copy of letter dt. 6.2.2013 Ex.C32, copies of checking report Ex.C33 and Ex.C34, detail of theft for the period 1.1.12 to 31.10.12 of village Amritsar Kalan Ex.C35, copies of various applications Ex.C36 to Ex.C43, copy of letter dt. 10.1.12 Ex.C44; copies of bills and application Ex.C45 and Ex.C46, copy of order dt. 20.4.2010 Ex.C47 and affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A. Whereas, the Ops produced affidavit of Aad Ram JE Ex.R1; copy of miscellaneous work order Ex.R2 and detail of readings Ex.R3 and Ex.R4.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
5. The main dispute between the parties is regarding bill no.4323 dt. 29.1.2010. As per the complainant, this bill has been issued to him on inflated basis without taking the correct reading from the check meter. Whereas, as per the Ops, check meter was installed on the application of the complainant and the reading of both the meters i.e. check meter and original meter was same and identical and functioning of the meter of the complainant was found OK. The previous account of the complainant has also already been overhauled, which is clear from the document Ex.R4. In this way, in our view, there was no deficiency on the part of the Ops at any stage. Hence, the present complainant deserves dismissal and we order accordingly. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:9.8.2016 District Consumer Disputes
Member Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
