Haryana

Sonipat

CC/147/2015

VIRENDER KUMAR TYAGI - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

KULDEEP TAYGI

19 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                Complaint No.147 of 2015

Instituted on: 04.05.2015                                                     

Date of order:  24.11.2015

 

 

Virender Kumar Tyagi, Advocate Chamber No.142, District Courts, Sonepat.

…Complainant.          Versus

SDO UHBVN  Industrial Area Sub Division Sonepat.

                                                                                                …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Kuldeep Tyagi, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Amit Balyan, Advocate for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          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 vide account no.IA25-1123-L. The respondent without any reason has started sending the bills on average basis.  The complainant has requested the respondent to send the bills on actual consumption basis, but of no use. The respondent has sent the bill dated 26.2.2015 showing old reading 461 new 512 units consumed 51 and demanded Rs.48357/- from the complainant. The complainant has alleged the said demand of the respondent to be wrong and illegal. So, he has some to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondent has submitted that meter of the complainant was replaced on 27.7.2014 vide MCO No.92/449 and the bill of Rs.48357/- has rightly been sent to the complainant and the complainant is legally liable to pay the same to the respondent.

3.       We have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.  

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondent has sent the bill dated 26.2.2015 showing old reading 461 new 512 units consumed 51 and demanded Rs.48357/- from the complainant and this demand of the respondent is wrong and illegal.

         The complainant has tendered the documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 in support of their case.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that meter of the complainant was replaced on 27.7.2014 vide MCO No.92/449 and the bill of Rs.48357/- has rightly been sent to the complainant and the complainant is legally liable to pay the same to the respondent.

         The respondent has tendered the documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 in support of their case.

         We have perused the document Ex.R2 i.e. ledger sheet very carefully. With effect from 8/14 to 6/15, the complainant has consumed 883 units.  The perusal of the copy of ledger also shows that when amount of Rs.36208/- was due, the complainant has deposited Rs.28000/- with the respondent and after deducting the said amount, the balance was shown as Rs.9675/-. Similarly, when amount was due as Rs.49769/-, the complainant deposited Rs.5486/- with the respondent and after deducting the said amount, the balance was shown as Rs.46073/-.  The copy of ledger also shows that w.e.f. 4/10 to 6/15, the complainant has made the payment only at two times as mentioned above whereas he was using the electricity energy extensively and without any interruption.   Further as far as the respondent is concerned, there is nothing on the file from the side of the respondent to prove that they ever issued any notice the complainant informing him that if the payment is not made, his electricity connection will be disconnected. Rather the respondent kept on issuing the bills on average basis to the complainant.  They never asked the complainant to get his electricity meter replaced. The respondent also never made any efforts to replace the electricity meter of the complainant with new one.  So, in our view,  the complainant and respondent are equally liable for their own acts and deeds.  However, in our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to the respondent. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to charge the complainant on the minimum charges basis w.e.f. 4/10 to 6/15 and after doing so, the respondent shall issue the revised bill for the period 4/10 to 6/15 on minimum charges basis.  The respondent is further directed to adjust the amount deposited by the complainant during the period 4/10 to 6/15 and after doing so, if any excess amount of the complainant is found, then the same be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant and if any amount is found due to be paid by the complainant, in that event, the complainant shall pay the same to the respondent.

 

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.  The respondent is also directed to make the compliance of this order within one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the law will take its own recourse.

 

         Certified copy of this order he provided to both the parties free of cost.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

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

Member,DCDRF, Member, DCDRF           President, DCDRF

Sonepat.      Sonepat.                Sonepat.

 

Announced 24.11.2015