Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/203/2014

Gian Singh aged about 75 years s/o Sh.Maha Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Eneingeer UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Sharma

01 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

                                                                 

                                                                                   Complaint No.203 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of Institution:5.5.2014.

                                                                                    Date of Decision:1.9.2017.

 

Gian Singh age about 75 years son of Sh.Maha Singh, resident of Laxmi Garden, Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                             …Complainant.                                                         

                                    Versus

1.         XEN (op) Division, UHBVNL Yamuna Nagar, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

2.         Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division, Indl. Area, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                              ..Respondents.         

 

Before: SH. SATPAL …………….    PRESIDENT

             SH. S.C. SHARMA  …………………………MEMBER.

             SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, ………...MEMBER

 

Present: Sh.Dharamvir Singh, Advocate for complainant.

              Sh.Balinder Singh, Advocate, for respondents.

 

ORDER   :       (SATPAL, PRESIDENT).

 

1.                     The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter the respondents shall be referred as OPs). 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is consumer of the Ops having domestic electric connection No.Y42YA153310F having sanctioned load of 2 KW and has been paying the bills regularly and nothing was outstanding against him.  The meter of the complainant was installed outside the house of complainant and was astonished to see the bill of Rs.83394/- for the month of January and February 2014 vide bill No.3551, dated 27.2.2014.  On receipt of bill the complainant examined the meter and meter box and it was found that the meter box was damaged.  The complainant clicked the photographs and contacted the OP No.2 who asked to sign the written complaint proforma by the Op No.2 and the complainant had signed the same.  The OP No.2 had installed the sub meter which shows that the previous meter was running 50% fast then the existing sub meter which clearly shows that the previous meter has become defective.  The OP has asked the complainant to pay a bill of Rs.58867/- after deducting an amount of Rs.24527/- on account of fast running of the meter.  The Ops did not pack and seal the meter and the same was not examined in the laboratory.  Actually, the electricity meter had become defective and it had jumped and shown such a huge reading.  The meter reading changes if the meter is tapped by hand and in the photographs also the meter is also showing only five digits instead of six.  The complainant requested the OP No.2 to correct the bill as per actual consumption but the Ops did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint by directing the Ops to set aside the bill no.3551 for Rs.83394/- and to send the fresh bill and also to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as Rs.5000/- as cost of proceedings. 

3.                     Upon notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum.  On merits, the Ops admitted that the complainant is consumer of the Ops and further alleged that the complainant is defaulter of Rs.83,394/- against the connection No.Y42YA153310F.  The connection of the complainant is liable to be disconnected due to non payment.  The alleged bill has been issued as per actual consumption of the electricity by complainant.  The complainant had only deposited a sum of Rs.15000/- on 13.8.2013 up to 5/14.  The complainant has paid nothing on account of consumption bill by the Ops and total amount of all consumption bills up to 2/214 comes to Rs.83394/- excluding the amount of Rs.15000/- which has been deposited by the complainant on 30.8.2013.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

4.                     To prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complaint as annexure CW/A, documents such as copy of bill dated 27.2.2014 as annexure C.1, copy of application dated 5.3.3014 as annexure C.2, photographs of meter as annexure C3 to C.5, original bill dated 24.6.2014 as annexure C.6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Ops.

5.                     On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Manoj Grewal SDO as annexure RW/A, document such as copy of  ledger as annexure R.1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. 

6.                     After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, it is clear that the complainant is consumer of the Ops and has been paying the bills regularly.  The plea taken by the Ops that the bill has been issued as per actual consumption charges is not tenable because if the bill was OK and the bills have been issued as per actual consumption charges then what was the need for the complainant to file the application dated 5.3.2014 which was duly received by the OP No.2 vide dairy No.15 dated 5.3.2014.  The application was duly marked in the name of Rakesh Sharma, JE but neither the Ops controverted the version of the application nor produced any report on the application whether they have taken any step or not, if taken then what step has been taken.  So, mere pleading is not sufficient to prove that the bills were issued as per actual consumption charges.  Hence, the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is proved and the complainant is entitled for relief to the extent of overhauling of account of the complainant.  We have perused the statement of account placed on file by the counsel for the Ops which is marked as annexure R.2 which shows the highest reading as 683 in the bill for the period from 4.10.2014 to 4.12.2014, so to see and save the loss to the exchequer of the State Government as well as in the interest of justice, it is justifiable to this Forum to take the above reading as base.  From the perusal of the statement of account there is much variation in bills in the year 2014-2015 from the regular billing.  So, in view of the above said discussion, we therefore, direct the Ops to charge the bill for the disputed period from January-2014 to December-2016 @ 683 units bi-monthly by overhauling the account of the complainant and issue the fresh bill within one month from the date of preparation of this order and accept the same in three equal installments with further bills without any surcharge.  However, the complainant is directed to pay the amount as per fresh bill to be issued by the Ops within three equal installments.   First installment within one month from the date of receipt of bill, second and third installments will be paid with the next bills.  It is further made clear that if the complainant fails to deposit the amount in three equal installments the Ops shall be at liberty to charge the further surcharge on the amount from the date of issue the fresh bill.  Complaint stands disposed off accordingly.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs.  File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court:1.9.2017.                                    

   

                                                                                                (SATPAL)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                            (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                (S.C. SHARMA)

                             MEMBER.                                                MEMBER.