Haryana

StateCommission

A/833/2017

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DINESH GARG - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

22 Aug 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.833 of 2017

                                                 Date of Institution: 13.07.2017

                                                        Date of Final Hearing: 22.08.2022

Date of pronouncement: 31.10.2022

 

S.D.O. UHBVNL Industrial Area,  Sub-Division, Sonepat.

…..Appellant

Versus

Dinesh S/o Sh.Moji Ram, R/o E-40, Industrial Area, Sonepat.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

Present:-    Mrs.Alka Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Sushil Jain, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 58 days in filing of the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the electricity connection bearing No.6472230000 was installed in the name of father of the complainant Shri Moji Ram. The complainant stopped his manufacturing unit, which was the only source of livelihood of complainant’s family. The unit was closed 3-4 years back under intimation to the OPs.  He received a bill of Rs.88,193/- dated 14.06.2016, which was wrong and illegal. In this bill, the units consumed  were 808 units for the period 30.04.2016  to 31.05.2016. The old reading was 21670 and new reading was 22478.   In this bill, the sundry charges was shown as Rs.64140/- and meter status OK since 11/15.  On 02.08.2016, he issued cheque of Rs.99126/-  under protest. The opposite parties threatened to recover the wrong and illegal amount of Rs.64140/- from him. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.      Notice being issued, opposite parties filed reply alleging that the OPs legally shown sundry charges of Rs.63762/- in the disputed bill. The old meter was running slow. The new meter was installed at the premises of the complainant and as per yearly consumption, the OPs legally imposed sundry charges.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

4.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (Now in short “District Commission) has allowed the complaint vide order dated 03.04.2017, which is as under:-

“The respondent is hereby directed to waive off the amount of Rs.64140/- from the complainant’s account. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to adjust the amount of Rs.64140/- in the future bills of the complainant.

Since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, the respondent is also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.Two Thousand) for rendering deficient services, unnecessary harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. This amount of compensation is also directed to be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant.

With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.”

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

6.      This arguments have been advanced by Mrs. Alka Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh.Sushil Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the old meter was running slow and on the request of the complainant, new meter was installed at the premises of the complainant and as per yearly consumption, the OPs legally imposed sundry charges and other charges from him. Without considering the documents placed on record by the OPs, the learned District Commission wrongly allowed the claim of the complainant.

8.      Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the OPs issued wrong bill dated 14.06.2016 for Rs.88193/- to him. In this bill, the OPs wrongly mentioned sundry charges of Rs.64140/-. The OP threatened to recover wrong and illegal amount of Rs.64140/- from him.  On 02.08.2016, the complainant under protest has issued cheque of Rs.99126/- in favour of the OPs. The learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint.

9.      It is not disputed that the meter was installed in the name of  Mauji Ram i.e. father of the complainant. As per bill dated 14.06.2016 issued by the OPs, the sundry charges of Rs.64140/- were demanded. The sanctioned load of the electricity was 19.80 KV. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the appellant  has placed on record account  detail of Mauji Ram, in which sundry charges of Rs.64140/- was mentioned in the bill for month of June 2016 and total demand of Rs.89510/- was raised. Since, these charges were imposed after account of the consumer  was overhauled at the time of change of previous electric meter so this outstanding amount was rightly imposed so the  impugned bill was correct  and valid one. The OPs-appellant rightly issued the bill of Rs.89510/- against the father of the complainant.  The amount being of the actual consumption so could not be exempted.

10.    In view of our aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the above stated facts. Hence, the appellants-UHBVNL cannot be held liable to wave off the disputed amount to the complainant. Thus, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain. Hence, the impugned order dated 03.04.2017 is set aside and the appeal is allowed and accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.1,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.

12.              Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

13.              A copy of this judgement be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgement be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

14.              File be consigned to record room.

 

 

31^st October, 2022  Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member    

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)