Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/788/2013

Kusum Walia W/o Babu Ram Walia - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O. City Sub Divi.UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Balwinder Saini

10 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No.788 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 30.10.2013

                                                                                    Date of decision: 10.08.2017

Smt. Kusum Walia wife of Shri Babu Ram Walia, resident of House No. 401, Roop Nagar Colony, Jagadhri Distt. Yamuna Nagar.  

 

     …Complainant.

 

                                       Versus

1. Sub Divisional Officer, (Op) City Sub Division, UHBVNL, Jagadhri.
2. Chairman, UHBVNL, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.  

                                                                                                                 . ..Respondents.

 

BEFORE:        SH. DHARAMPAL, PRESIDENT,

                       SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                       SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh. Balwinder Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                       Sh. Jaipal Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents.   

 

ORDER            (DHARAMPAL PRESIDENT)

 

1.                    Complainant Smt. Kusum Walia has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended upto date (hereinafter the respondents shall be referred as OPs).           

2.                   Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the domestic electric connection bearing account No. Y-31JC13/5627 stands installed in her name at the above said residential house. In the year 2010, Vigilance department of the OPs had taken away the electric meter from the above residential house and for about 10 months they did not install the meter inspite repeated visits of the complainant. Lateron, report of the meter came as Ok and the respondents assured to install new meter. At the same time, the complainant deposited electricity bill of about Rs. 6,900/- with the OP No. 1. In July 2011, new meter was installed at the above said address of the complainant but very soon that meter became defective/stopped, regarding which the complainant by way of an application informed the OP No. 1 on 17-10-2011 but that defective meter was not changed by the Ops and rather the Ops continued sending excessive bills to complainant. The complainant being a prudent lady, deposited lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards the bills with the OP No. 1 on 28-03-2012 but inspite of that, the Ops without adjusting the above amount of Rs. 10,000/- sent a wrong and excessive bill of Rs. 17,731/- to the complainant irrespective of the fact that the meter was lying closed from the very beginning and that the complainant many a times had already had made complaint in person and in writing through her son Shri Pardeep Walia on 14-08-2012 to the OP No. 1 which was duly received and endorsed by the OP No. 1 but the bill was neither rectified nor the defective meter was changed/replaced by the OPs. The complainant being an old lady, through her son Shri Pardeep Walia again moved an application on 27-11-2012 to the OP No. 1 for replacing the defective meter and to rectify the wrong and excessive bill. On that application, although the OP No. 1 changed the defective meter but did not adjust the excessive amount received from the complainant. It was the height of things that again the meter become defective and the OPs without adjusting the above said excessive amount, again sent a bill No. 1052 dated 24-08-2013 of Rs. 42,146/- which is highly excessive and wrong. The complainant having aggrieved from the act and conduct of the OPs, through her son moved an application dated 10-09-2013 explaining the above incident, with prayer to change the defective meter and to rectify the wrong bill after adjusting the excessive amount received from her so that the actual consumption charges could be deposited. The OP No. 1 is not listening the genuine requests of the complainant and rather they have threatened the complainant to deposit the current bill dated 24-08-2013 otherwise the electric supply will be disconnected. The respondents have refused to see the reason and consider the application dated 10-09-2013 and rather they are out of disconnect the electric connection of the complainant. In this way, the act and conduct of the OPs is wrong and illegal and are guilty of the deficient and negligent services to the complainant by not adjusting the excessive amount so received by them in the subsequent bill. As such it is prayed that the complaint may kindly be accepted and OPs be directed to adjust the excessive amount and issue correct bill as per consumption, to restrain the OPs from disconnecting electricity supply, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and to pay costs of these proceedings to the complainant.   

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as no locus standi, no cause of action and on merit it has been stated that the vigilance staff of the OPs checked the premises of the complainant and the meter was taken away by the staff on account of suspected theft to be got checked from the M&P lab. The meter was found O.K. and the same was installed at the premises of the complainant. An amount of Rs. 17,480/- was deposited in the account of the complainant on 2/10 due to suspected theft but when the report was received and it was found that the meter was O.K., the amount of Rs. 20,871/- was credited in the account of the complainant on 08/11 and as such no excess amount has been charged from the complainant. The meter of the complainant was installed on 10-03-2011 after receiving the report of M&P lab but the same became defective and new meter was installed on 17-12-2012 and during this period the bill was sent to the complainant on average basis. It is further submitted that the meter of the complainant again became defective and the same was changed on 17-12-2012. The bill was sent to the complainant as per actual position on average basis from 08/11 to 12/12. No excess amount has been charged from the complainant. The bill issued to the complainant dated 24-08-2013 of Rs. 42,416/- is legal and genuine and as per actual consumption. The complainant is always defaulter and is not making the payment of the bills and the OPs are at liberty to disconnect the connection of the complainant in case she fails to make the payment of the bills. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and document such as Photocopies of electricity bills bearing No. 1063 dated 23.04.2012  and bill No. 1052 dated 24-08-2013 as Annexure C-1 and C-2, photocopy of complaint regarding change of the meter as Annexure C-3, photocopies of complaint regarding change of the meter and rectifying the bills as Annexure C-4 to C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, representative on behalf of the OPs tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure RA along with documents as Annexure R-1 to R-6 in the evidence of the OPs and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     In view of the above said discussion, we are of the considered view that complainant’s electricity connection bearing account No. Y-31JC13/5627 was installed. In the month of August, 2010, Vigilance department of the OPs had taken away the meter of the complainant but meter was found okay, and the same was installed at the premises of the complainant and an amount of Rs. 17,480/- was deposited by complainant. After that, this amount Rs. 20,871 was credited in the account of the complainant on August 2011. The meter account No. Y-31JC13/5627 same again installed on 16-03-2011, after receiving the report of M & P lab. The bills for duration of August, 2010 to 16-03-2011 were issued on average unit bills. The complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the bill dated 28-03-2012 against on average basis from August 2011 to December 2012. So, meter was changed on her application in the year 2013. No amount was paid by complainant from June 2012 to 30-10-2013. According to Annexure R-1, the bill dated 24-08-2013 was issued to the complainant of Rs. 42,416/- as per actual consumption as (Annexure C-2). However from the perusal of the Annexure R-1, it is clear that reading of the new meter for February, 2013 is 183 only and the detail of new meter reading is as under :-

                                                New                 Old

02/13                           183                  001                  -

            04/13                           388                  183                  205

            06/13                           447                  388                  59

            08/13                           870                  447                  423

            10/13                           D                      870                  314     

            It means that when old meter was changed with new one, the total reading of new meter from 02/13 to 08/13 is only 870 units.

8.                     In view of the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the OPs to overhaul the account of the complainant upto Feb. 2013 on the basis of average consumption for the period 02/13 to 08/13 and issue fresh bill accordingly.  After overhauling the account of the complainant for the previous period, if any amount becomes due towards the complainant, the same be recovered from him as per rules of the Nigam and if any amount becomes due towards the OPs the same be refunded to the complainant. The complaint is, hereby, disposed of accordingly. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced: 10.08.2017

                                                    ( DHARAMPAL)

                                                     PRESIDENT

                                                     D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                     AT JAGADHRI

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)    (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                    MEMBER

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

( DHARAMPAL)

                                                            PRESIDENT

                                                            D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                  AT JAGADHRI