BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 221 of 2016                                                                         

                                                          Date of Institution         :    06.09.2016                                                                        

                                                          Date of  Decision  :    06.01.2017

Jaspal Singh, aged 40 years son of Shri Surjit, resident of village Kamaal, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa.

                                                                                        ……Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Managing Director at Hisar.

2. Executive Engineer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., op Division, Dabwali, District Sirsa.

Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Op Kalanwali 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. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for the complainant.

          Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties.

ORDER

                                In brief, case of the complainant is that complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties vide electricity connection No. SK38/0366 installed in his residential premises at village Kamaal, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa. As alleged, in the month of January/February, 2016 he noticed that electricity meter was showing excess units upon which he moved an application to the ops. Ops changed the meter with new one. Thereafter, ops served bill No.5905 dated 22.5.2016 showing the old reading as Zero with new reading as 67 but ops claimed the consumption charges for 7605 units and raised a demand of Rs.67,720/-. Upon that he approached to the ops but to no effect. Thereafter, ops also served another bill dated 22.7.2016 for the sum of Rs.71,448/-. Hence, this complaint challenging the bill No.5905 dated 22.5.2016 for the sum of Rs.67,720/-.

2.                On notice, opposite parties appeared and replied that on the application of the complainant ops changed his meter vide MCO No.44/373 on 9.3.2016 and at the time of change the old meter was having reading as 16583.9. It is further replied that at the time of removal of old meter, complainant has already paid for 9045 units in previous bill and accordingly he has been charged for 7538 units for the old meter and 67 units from the new meter and accordingly they raised the bill for 7605 units and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3.                By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, copies of various bills and payment receipts Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. Whereas, the ops produced affidavit Ex.R1, copy of MCO Ex.R2, copy of ledger account Ex.R3.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

5.                The only question to decide the present complaint case is that whether the ops rightly raised the demand of Rs.67,720/- vide bill No.5905 dated 22.5.2016 or not? To answer this question, from the complainant side there is nothing except his affidavit on the record that the old meter was running fast and was recording the excess reading. Reading pointed out by the ops at the time of change of meter has also not been challenged throughout. It has also not been denied that complainant has already paid for 9045 units out of the total reading of 16583.9 recorded in the old meter. It is also pointed out that complainant has already paid Rs.30,000/- as a part payment out of the disputed bill. On the other side, the opposite parties have successfully proved through ledger account Ex.R3 that up till 4/2016, complainant was charged for 9045 units out of the total reading of 16583.9 units which is clearly established through Ex.R2 that at the time of change of meter, reading was 16583.9.

6.                As a result of our above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that ops have rightly issued the bill of Rs.67,720/- on the basis of reading recorded in the old meter of the complainant and there is nothing on the record to show that reading recorded by the old meter was excessive in any manner. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A 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:06.01.2017.                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                Member                Redressal Forum, Sirsa.