Haryana

StateCommission

A/178/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MEENA DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

11 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                           First Appeal No.178 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution:29.02.2016                                                         Date of Decision:11.08.2016

 

SDO, Industrial Area, Sub Division, UHBVNL,Sonepat.

…Appellant

                                      Versus

Meena Devi W/o Yashbir, R/o Kakroi road, sonepat (Opp. Lal Chand Ki Samadhi, Sonepat).

                                                                             …Respondent

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

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:     Mr.B.D.Bhatia, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                   Mr.Vikas Lochab, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

                                                ORDER

 

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

1. SDO, Industrial Area, Sub Division, UHBVNL, Sonepat – OP is in appeal against the Order dated 19.01.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Sonepat, whereby the complaint of Meena Devi - Complainant has been allowed with the following directions: -

“xxx in our view, the notice No.126 dated 01.05.2015 and subsequent bill dated 02.05.2015 for Rs.1,69,764/- are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the complainant is not legally liable to pay the same to the respondent. 

         The perusal of the case file shows that as per order dated 15.05.2015, the complainant was allowed to deposit 20% amount of Rs.169764/- with the respondent and if the said amount was deposited by the complainant, in that event, the respondent shall adjust the same in the account of complainant in future bills of the complainant”.

2. In brief, according to the complainant, on 22.04.2015 some officials of the Nigam checked the premises of the complainant and found that single phase energy meter installed outside the premises, outgoing side black wire of the meter was in a burnt position. On the basis of this report, the respondent issued notice memo No.126 dated 01.05.2015 vide which the meter reading was shown as 2741, but at the time of checking, the same was found to be as 24223. Hence, an amount of Rs.1,69,764/- was charged for difference of reading i.e. 21482. The complainant by way of the complaint has alleged the said demand of Rs.169764/- to be wrong and illegal.  The complainant challenged this demand as illegal and prayed for the quashing of the notice as well as the demand of Rs.1,69,764/- based thereon.
3. Justifying their action, the OP pleaded that on 22.04.2015, when the premises of the complainant were checked the front of the meter was found in burnt position. Thereupon, the videography of the meter was conducted and the burnt meter was replaced with the O.K. meter. On the basis of the report received from the officials, notice memo No.126 dated 01.05.2015 was issued and as at the time of checking, the reading was found as 24223, the amount of Rs.1,69,764/- was rightly been charged from the complainant. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be rejected. However, the learned District Forum, agreeing with the complainant found the plea of the respondent untenable and allowed the complaint on 19.01.2016 by granting the aforesaid relief.  
4. Against the impugned order dated 19.01.2016, the OP / appellant have filed appeal before us reiterating their pleas raised before the District Forum. The complainant – respondent has also reiterated their own submissions made by them in support of the complainant. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record. From a close scrutiny of the record, it is evident that at the time when the checking of the premises belonging to the complainant was made by the staff of the appellant, the electricity meter installed at the premises was burnt from the front. Photographs of the same have been produced by the appellants, which support their plea. From the burnt meter it is clearly decipherable that the reading of the meter at that time was 24223. From this reading, the tariff was rightly calculated by the appellant as Rs.1,69,764/- for which amount, the notice and the bill were issued to the complainant. Not only that O.K. meter was installed immediately thereafter and the necessary Report was sent by the checking staff. If lateron the reading of the bill was shown as 2741, the correctness and validity of the demand made by the appellant- OP will not be affected. In view of the aforesaid factual position, established on record by documentary evidence, the plea raised by the complainant – respondent is wholly without any merit. There being no deficiency in service on the part the appellant, their demand for the recovery of the amount, in question, is legally in order. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the complaint of the complainant – respondent is dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

August 11th, 2016                   Urvashi Agnihotri                    R.K. Bishnoi

                                       Member                                  Judicial Member

                                       Addl. Bench                            Addl. Bench

S.K.