Haryana

StateCommission

A/612/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOHINDER KAUR - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

25 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      612 of 2016

Date of Institution:      06.07.2016

Date of Decision :       25.10.2016

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

2.      S.K. Goel, Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban, Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchkula.

3.      Managing Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Sadan, C-6, Panchkula.

4.      Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Ambala.

4.      Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchkula.

                                                                   Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Smt. Mohinder Kaur w/o Shri Ashok Kumar Virdi, Resident of House No164, Sector-21, Panchkula.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

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

                             Shri Ashok Kumar Virdi-husband of respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated 10^th May, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Smt. Mohinder Kaur-complainant-respondent, was allowed directing the appellant-opposite parties, as under:-

“a)           The Ops shall overhaul the account of the Complainant for the indicated six months duration. The complainant shall be entitled to the benefit of the outcome of the exercise aforementioned.

b)            The Ops shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in service as also mental harassment caused to her by the non-affording of an opportunity to her to be present at the time of testing of the meter.

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

2.                Ashok Kumar Virdi-husband of the complainant/respondent retired as Chief Engineer from Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘UHBVNL’). It was stated that the electric meter installed as his residential house was running fast for couple of years. However, no action was taken. The officials of the UHBVNL checked the meter and found that there was no outgoing current in one phase. Thus, the meter was found to be defective and replaced. It was tested in the M&T laboratory. As per report of the M&T lab, the meter was 40.4% slow because its one phase was dead. The account of the complainant was overhauled. The UHBVNL raised demand of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant.

3.                The grievance of the complainant was that the UHBVNL wrongly demanded the amount of Rs.5,000/- on the basis of average consumption of the new meter for six months, without adding any amount already paid to the UHBVNL.

 4.               The opposite parties- UHBVNL contested complaint stating that the meter was replaced on 23.06.2014 on the request of the complainant and it being sent in M&T lab, was found 40.4% slow.

5.                Learned counsel for the appellants- UHBVNL challenged the order of the District Forum by placing reliance upon the report (Annexure C-12) of the M&T Lab giving details of Limits of Error and found the meter to be slow by 40.4% due to blue phase being dead.

6.                Shri Ashok Virdi, who is present in person being representative of the complainant, has contended that no reliance can be placed on the M&T lab report because the same is not authentic. He himself being posted as Superintending Engineer in the office of UHBVNL, cannot be permitted to say that the report of the M&T lab is not reliable. At the same time, the complainant has not led any evidence in support of the contention that M&T lab report is not reliable. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order cannot sustain.

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

8.                The statutory amount of Rs.7500/- 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: 25.10.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL