Haryana

Sonipat

CC/146/2015

MAHABIR SINGH S/O DHARAM SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O. U.H.B.V.N.L. IND. AREA SUB DIVISION SONEPAT - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV KUMAR RUHIL

18 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.146 of 2015

                                Instituted on:04.05.2015

                                Date of order:18.09.2015

 

Mahavir Singh son of Dharam Singh, r/o H.No.2257 Sector 23, Sonepat.

 

                                                     ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

SDO UHBVN Industrial Area, Sub Divn. Sonepat.

                                    

                                                     ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

           Shri BS Dahiya, Adv. for respondent.

 

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

           D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the consumer of the respondent. It is also submitted that for the last more than one year, the respondent is sending wrong and illegal bills to the complainant without taking the reading of the meter which is installed outside the premises.  The complainant has moved an application dated 16.9.2014 to the respondent and the meter was checked by the official of the respondent on 20.11.2014 and reading was found 582 units.  Now the respondent has issued a bill in the month of 12/2014 demanding Rs.17031/- which is wrong and illegal. So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, it is submitted that the bill for the month of 12/2014 has been prepared as per consumption data.  The respondent has rightly issued the bill of Rs.17031/- which is legal and the complainant is legally liable to pay the same to the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and has gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        In the present case, the complainant has alleged the demand of Rs.17031/- of the respondent to be wrong and illegal. Whereas the respondent has submitted that the respondent has rightly issued the bill of Rs.17031/- which is legal and the complainant is legally liable to pay the same.

          We have perused the case file very carefully and it shows that the record w.e.f. 6/13 to 6/15 is available before this Forum.  The complainant has moved an application C1 to the respondent with the request to rectify the bill. On the back side of document C1, there is a report of CA and as per this report on 10.10.12 the reading in the meter was 582.  C4 is the bill to the tune of Rs.17031/-. C5 and C6 are the ID proofs of the complainant.

          From the documents C3 and R2, it is gathered by this Forum that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.2033/- against the bill for the month of  12/13, Rs.15705/- towards the bill for the month of 6/14 and Rs.5066/- against the bill for the month of 4/2015.  The perusal of these documents itself shows that the complainant used the electricity units 0 to 741 upto June, 2015, whereas the respondent got deposited more-than Rs.22000/- from the complainant.  The perusal of the document R2 shows that without any reason and rhyme, the respondent issued the bill thrice for 1688, 1688 and 1688 units.  In our view, all the bills were issued by the respondent official without taking the reading from the meter. The complainant is an old aged person and the respondent has rendered deficient services to the complainant and the complainant has also been able to prove his case against the respondent.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to charge minimum from the complainant w.e.f. 6/13 to 6/15 or to charge the bill for only 741 units and to refund the amount excessively charged by the respondent from the complainant.  The respondent is also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousand) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced: 18.09.2015