Haryana

StateCommission

A/648/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARNAM SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

N.K.BAJAJ

11 Oct 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.648 of  2016

Date of the Institution: 15.07.2016

Date of Decision: 11.10.2017

 

1.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its XEN, City Division, Panipat.

2.      SDO, OP, City Sub-Division, UHBVNL, Quilla, Panipat.

 

                                                                   .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Harnam Singh S/o Sh.Mehar Singh, R/o H.No.472, Ward No.4, Panipat.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.N.K.Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that he was using electricity from connection bearing No. LB-11-534.  On 24.09.2013 opposite parties (O.Ps.)  removed meter and sent to M&T  Lab Karnal for testing as per report of M & T Lab the meter was found “OK”. In the month of September 2013 he received bill of Rs.44,201/- including sundry charges of Rs.11,365/- total amounting to Rs.56,633/- which was altogether wrong.  When he moved an application before sub-Divisional Officer i.e. O.P.No.2 to correct the bill it was told that at the time of M&T testing the meter was found slow by 5%. Even if meter was slow by 5% the bill could not have been to this extent.  In the month of March 2014 he received bill of Rs.63,890/- which was altogether wrong.  O.Ps. be directed to correct the bill and delete sundry charges from the same. They be also directed to pay compensation as prayed for.

2.      In reply it was alleged by O.Ps. that on 24.09.2013 when the premises was checked seals of M&T seemed doubtful and that is why the meter was removed and sent to lab for testing. As per report dated 09.10.2013 the meter was found slow by 5%.  In the month of September 2013 bill of Rs.56633/- was issued on the ground of half margin bearing book No.1404/70.  As per audit report Rs.10,464.60 were charged on the ground of recovery due to short fall in electricity consumption because the meter was defective.  Rs.44201/- were charged as electricity consumption alongwith the previous pending bills  which were not cleared by complainant.  So he was not entitled for the relief claimed.   As the meter was in the name of Duli Chand  complainant was not consumer.  Objections about locus standi, accruing cause of action etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (In short “District Forum”) allowed complaint and directed as under:-

“We hereby allow the present complaint with a direction to opposite parties not to demand the sum of Rs.56,633/- from the complainant and in case out of this amount any amount has been deposited by the complainant refund the amount with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. We further direct the opposite parties to install the new meter in the premises of complainant  if not installed. Cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2200/- is also allowed to be paid by opposite parties to the complainant.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the O.Ps. have preferred this appeal. 

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      As per  bill dated 10.11.2013 Rs.44,201/- were pertaining to arrears of previous bill.  The complainant has miserably failed to show that he has ever paid the amount of previous bills. Half margin amount is charged as per Ex.R-3 and not due to low speed of the meter by 5%. In this way the complainant is liable to pay the amount mentioned in the bill dated 10.11.2013. It is ordered that if the amount is added in this bill due to slow running of meter by 5% then the same should be deleted. With these observations the appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 01.03.2016 is set aside and complaint is dismissed.

7.  The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

October 11th, 2017

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.