Haryana

StateCommission

A/611/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

KANCHAN BALA - Opp.Party(s)

B D BHATIA

06 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    611 of 2016

Date of Institution:    06.07.2016

Date of Decision :     06.02.2017

 

1.     Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban, Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchkula.

2.     Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Kanchan Bala w/o Sh. Rajinder Singla, Resident of House No.1208-F, Sector-11, Panchkula.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Rajinder Singla, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated June 6^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.223 of 2015.

2.                Kanchan Bala-complainant (respondent herein) being employee of Haryana Government, was allotted government house bearing No.1215, Sector-11, Panchkula. She took electric connection No.PS14-2064-H from Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL)-Opposite Parties/appellants. 

3.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that she has paid all the bills regularly but when she demanded the NOC from the UHBVNL on her transfer to Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar, the UHBVNL demanded Rs.61,764/- out of which the amount of Rs.59,026/- was shown as arrears.  Thus, she sought setting aside the impugned demand.

4.                The opposite parties- UHBVNL contested complaint by filing written version. it was stated that the complainant was provided connection in February, 2011 and she paid the bills up to August, 2011 and thereafter her premises was found locked with effect from October, 2011 till June, 2014. So, she was issued bills from October, 2011 to June 30^th, 2014 on average basis and during that period she paid Rs.10,316/- to the UHBVNL. Complainant’s connection was disconnected on June 30^th, 2014 at the reading of 14612 under P.D.C.O. No.56/806. As per reading of the meter, a bill for Rs.69,342/- was issued and after subtracting the amount of Rs.10,316/- already paid by her, the net liability of the complainant came to Rs.59,026/- which she was liable to pay.

5.                Vide impugned order, the District Forum allowed complaint and directed the UHBVNL-opposite parties as under:-

“a)     The Ops have been proved to have illegally charged the amount of Rs.59026/- from the complainant under duress due to her need for the obtaining of NOC. That amount shall be refunded to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization.

b)      The Ops having been proved to have committed deficiency in service and to have further caused mental harassment to the complainant, would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the latter.

c)      The Ops shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation.”   

6.                Undisputedly, the complainant-respondent paid the bill with respect to her connection up to 1941 units. It is also not in dispute that at the time of disconnection and removal of the meter, the reading of meter was 14612 units. It is not the case of the parties that the meter of the complainant was defective. Rather it has come on the record that as and when the official of the UHBVNL went to take reading of complainant’s meter, the premises was found locked. So, the bills were being sent on average basis which the complainant paid.  Final bill was raised on the basis of actual reading and benefit of payment made on the basis average bills was given.

7.                Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents available on the record, it is held that the complainant is liable to pay the impugned bill to the UHBVNL-opposite parties. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.

8.                In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

9.                The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 06.02.2017

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL