Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/202/2015

Astt. Engineer AVVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ikbal Hussen s/o Abdulla - Opp.Party(s)

B.S. Matwa

04 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 202 /2015

 

A.En., Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. City Jhunjhunu & ors.

 

Vs.

 

Iqbal Hussain s/o Abdullah r/o Millat Nagar, Ward No. 03, Kasba Jhunjhunu Tehsil & Distt. Jhunjhunu.

 

Date of Order 04.01.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Sunita Ranka- Member

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.B.S. Matwa counsel for the appellants

 

 

 

2

 

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the court below dated 25.11.2014 whereby the court below has ordered that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellant and the award has been made against him.

 

The facts of the case are that a domestic connection has been issued in favour of the respondent and regular bills were issued to him which were paid by him but in February 2013 the appellants have claimed Rs. 36085/- as previous dues. The contention of the respondent was that he had paid the regular bills and no previous dues were against him and there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellant.

 

The appellant came with a case that since October 2009 the screen of the meter was get black and reading was not visible. Hence, average bills were sent to the consumer and thereafter on actual consumption when meter was changed a

 

 

3

 

 

fresh bill has been raised while adjusting the previous 6370 units and there is no deficiency of service.

 

It is very unfortunate that from October 2009 as per the contention of the appellant the reading was not visible but meter has been changed after three years and appellant was sleeping over the matter for long three years. The contention of the appellant that average bills were sent which seems to be faulty as photo copies of the bills were produced before the court below in which December 2012 and October 2012 consumption of 300 units were shown which shows that no average bills were sent but on the consumption bills were sent. Hence, it was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant to again sent the bills on different readings for the impugned months and the court below has rightly held that appellants are not entitled for any recovery from the respondent and rightly ordered that amended bill be issued to the respondent. It is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the appellants as they were sleeping over the matter and when once they have claimed the amount on the reading of actual consumption, they cannot re-claimed the amount amending the reading.

 

4

 

In view of the above there is no ground for interference in the order of the court below and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Sunita Ranka) (Nisha Gupta )

Member Member President

 

 

nm