Haryana

StateCommission

A/63/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

NAVEEN RANI - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.BAIRAGI

12 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.63  of 2016

Date of the Institution:20.01.2016

Date of Decision:12.01.2017

 

1.      The XEN UHBVNL Sub division Gohana Road, near 8 Marla Chowki, Panipat.

2.      SDO, Sub Division, Gohana Road, near 8 Marla Chowki, Panipat.

3.      UHBVNL through its MD/Authorized Signatory Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

                                                                             .….Appellants

Versus

Naveen Rani wife of Jagbir resident of Virat Nagar, Panipat.

                                                                                                .….Respondent

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

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.B.S. Bairagi, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                    Mr.Rahul Jaswal,  Advocate counsel for respondent.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. Xen UHBNL Sub Division and Anr. -OPs are in appeal against the Order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Naveen Rani has been allowed by issuing the following directions to the OPs :-

“We hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the wrong and illegal amount of Rs.103,192/- from the bill dated 28.5.2014 as the complainant is not liable to pay the same to the opposite parties. We further direct the opposite parties to refund the amount if any is paid by the complainant against the wrong and illegal demand of Rs.103192/- and that amount is directed to be refunded to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of its deposit till realization. Cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2200/- is also allowed to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant”.

2. Briefly stated, according to the complainant, he was availing the facility of electricity service through OPs vide connection bearing account No.MT30-2937, and meter No.AE-11-1728 by continuously paying the electricity bills regularly till the last bill dated 28.3.2014 in the amount of Rs.2427/-. However, in the month of May, 2014, the complainant received a bill dated 28.5.2014 of Rs.1,05,959/- in which an amount of Rs.1,03,192/- was wrongly added as CUR SOP CHGR. After receiving the said bill, the complainant approached the OPs and requested to correct the electricity bill dated 28.5.2014 but OPs 1 & 2 prolonged the matter under one pretext or the other and lastly on 30.6.2014 refused to rectify/correct the wrong bill dated 28.5.2014. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum for the rectification of the bill alleging deficiency in service on the part  of the OPs.
3. Pursuant to notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed the written reply pleading that Rs.1,03,192/- had been charged on account of half margin vide para No.46/56 Book No.99/76 and the same half margin amount had been charged through bill for the month of May, 2014, but the complainant did not deposit the said amount till today and the complainant was bound to deposit the same as per Nigam’s rules and regulations. OPs further denied all the other allegations of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. However, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas raised by the OPs and accepted the complaint vide order dated 07.09.2015 granting the aforesaid relief. 
4. Against the impugned order, the OPs/appellant has filed appeal before us reiterating their pleas as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. From the perusal of the record it is evident that the meter in question relating to the electricity connection of the complainant was defective/ burnt and the same was overhauled for the period mentioned in the half margin report – R/1 produced by the OPs themselves. Though, the OPs mentioned the fact of half margin payment, but it was suppressed by them that the meter was found defective/burnt. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as even though their SDO Satish Goyal has admitted in the written statement that “the meter of the complainant was defective/burnt and the same was replaced with the new meter and after receiving the meter reading of new healthy meter, the account  of the complainant was overhauled”.
   Thus, the grievance made by the complainant was well based and the plea of the recovery of the so called out standing amount on the basis of half margin recovery was wholly without any basis. Moreover, the alleged outstanding amount related to the period July, 2007 to March, 2010, which was sought to be recovered through bill dated 28.05.2014, which was beyond the period of two years. Therefore, the conclusions arrived at by the learned District Forum are factually correct and legally in order. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal filed by the OPs and uphold the Order of the learned of the District Forum.
5. The statutory amount of Rs.15,840/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

January 12th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.