Haryana

StateCommission

A/549/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJENDER - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

15 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     549 of 2016

Date of Institution:     15.06.2016

Date of Decision :      15.09.2016

 

1.     Sub Divisional Officer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Murthal, District Sonipat.

2.     Executive Engineer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, ITI Chowk, Sonipat.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Rajender s/o Sh. Tara Chand, Resident of Shanti Nagar, Village Murthal, Tehsil and District Sonipat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                                  

Present:               Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for appellants.

                             Respondent-Rajender in person.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

         This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated March 2^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’), in Complaint No.170 of 2015.

2.                Rajender-complainant/respondent, obtained domestic electric connection bearing account No.MU-28-1193-K from Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘UHBVNL’)-Opposite Parties/appellants. He was paying the bills to the UHBVNL regularly.

3.                The complainant received bill dated December 10^th, 2014 (Exhibit P-1), for Rs.5435/- wherein the amount of Rs.3686/- was added as ‘Arrears’. The complainant approached the UHBVNL to correct the bill but the UHBVNL instead of correcting the bill, sent the subsequent bill dated April 10^th, 2015 (Exhibit P-2) for Rs.24,285/- in which the amount of Rs.23,594/- was shown under the heading ‘Arrears’.  Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.                The UHBVNL in its reply pleaded that the meter of the complainant was replaced on January 15^th, 2015 vide MCO No.98/202. The account of the complainant was overhauled for the period January, 2014 to December, 2014 and bill (Exhibit P-2) was issued by taking the average of 441 units bimonthly. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint observing as under:-

“…..We have also perused the document Ex.D2. As per Ex.D2, the consumer account was overhauled after taking the base units as 2165. The document Ex.D2 has wrongly been prepared by the respondents without any base. In our view, the complainant is only liable to pay the amount for 441 units. Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to issue the revised bill to the complainant for 441 units without any surcharge and while doing so, the respondents are also directed to adjust the amount whatsoever is deposited by the complainant against Rs.24285/- by the complainant.”

 

5.                The solitary contention raised on behalf of the UHBVNL is that the meter of the complainant was replaced and his account was overhauled for the period January 2014 to December, 2014; so bill of Rs.24,285/- was issued on the basis of the actual consumption recorded by the new meter. In support, reliance was placed upon the calculation (Exhibit D-2).

6.                The contention raised is not tenable. It is not the case of the UHBVNL that the meter of the complainant was defective. A perusal of the ledger (Annexure-A) shows that the complainant was being charged bills as per the actual consumption recorded by the old meter. For ready reference, the details given in the ledger are reproduced as under:-

Bill dated	New reading	Old Reading	Units consumed
1/14	2040	1711	329
4/14	2421	2040	381
6/14	3168	2421	747
8/14	3433	3168	265
10/14	4027	3433	594
12/14	4352	4027	325

 

7.                In view of the ledger reproduced above, it is manifest that the meter of complainant was running and he was paying the bills regularly.  The UHBVNL has miserably failed to prove that on what basis the bill was issued for 2165 units. In view of this, the demand raised by the UHBVNL was not justified.

8.                In view of the above, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

Announced 15.09.2016

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

Nawab Singh President

CL