Haryana

Sonipat

CC/12/2016

Satnarain S/o Bishamber - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer U.H.B.V.N.L. - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. Gaur

15 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.12 of 2016

                                Instituted on:08.01.2016

                                Date of order:15.06.2016

 

Sat Narain son of Bishamber, resident of Ward no.6, Delhi road, Opp. New Subzi Mandi, Kharkhoda (Sonepat).

                                                      ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.Executive Engineer, UHBVN Ltd. Fazilpur.

2.SDO  UHBVN Ltd. Kharkhoda, Sonepat.

                                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.  SK Gaur Adv. for complainant.

           Sh.  Amit Balyan, Adv. For respondents.                

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he is consumer of the respondent vide connection no.KK31-3525K.  The respondents have sent a bill to the complainant for Rs.18201/- which is wrong and illegal since no amount is due against the complainant and he has deposited the entire bills regularly.  The complainant has requested the respondents so many times to rectify the said wrong and illegal bill, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that the bill issued to the complainant for Rs.18201/- is legal, genuine and as per instructions of the Nigam.  The meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No.53/803 dated 31.3.2014 and thereafter the audit observation no.4574/31 was prepared and the amount of Rs.18201/- was charged from the complainant rightly and legally.  There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        In the present case, the complainant has alleged the demand of Rs.18201/- of the respondents to be wrong and illegal since no amount was due against him and he was depositing the bills of electricity energy with the respondents regularly.  He has further submitted that the sundry charges cannot be charged without show cause notice to the complainant.

          In support of his contention, he has relied upon the case law titled as UP Power Corp. Ltd. and others Vs. Vimla Devi and others, 2016(1) Civil Court Cases page 819(SC).

          He has further relied upon the case law titled as UHBVN Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Sharma, 2016(2) CLT page 429 wherein it has been held that sundry charges cannot be charged without show cause notice to consumer.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the bill issued to the complainant for Rs.18201/- is legal, genuine and as per instructions of the Nigam.  The meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No.53/803 dated 31.3.2014 and thereafter the audit observation no.4574/31 was prepared and the amount of Rs.18201/- was charged from the complainant rightly and legally.  There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondents.

          The respondents have placed on record the document Ex.R1 consumption analysis data w.e.f. 7/11 to 6/14.

          As per the respondents, the meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No.53/803 dated 31.3.2014.  But the perusal of the document Ex.R1 shows that the respondents have overhauled the account of the complainant after taking the base of only one bimonthly bill, whereas as per the instructions, rules & regulations of the Nigam, it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider the consumption of minimum three bimonthly readings.  So, overhauling of account of the complainant only on the basis of one bimonthly bill is wrong, illegal and also against the rules, regulations  and instructions of the Nigam.  Further more, no show cause notice was ever issued by the respondents to the complainant regarding raising demand of sundry charges.  So, in our view, the demand of Rs.18201/- raised by the respondents from the complainant is wrong, illegal and totally unjustified and the complainant is not legally liable to pay the same to the respondents. The respondents are directed not to recover or charge the aforesaid wrong and illegal amount from the complainant.

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

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF                        DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:15.06.2016