Haryana

Sonipat

CC/304/2015

Mahabir Parsad S/o Rampat - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O. U.H.B.V.N.L. Sonepat - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Goyal

20 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                Complaint No.304 of 2015

Instituted on: 25.08.2015                                                     

Date of order: 20.05.2016

 

 

Mahabir Parsad son of Shri Rampat, r/o 737/22, Bharatpuri, behind PS City, Sonepat near Sale Tax office, Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.          Versus

1.SDO City Sub Division S 11(1A) UHBVN Ltd. Sonepat.

2.XEN (OP)  UHBVN Ltd. City Sub Divn. Sonepat.

                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Ajay Goyal, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Baljit Khatri, Advocate for respondents.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging himself to be the consumer of the respondents vide account no.8707930000.  On 8.8.2015, the respondents have issued the electricity bill for Rs.27804/- on average basis by showing the old unit of meter as 0 and new reading was shown as 27813.  The complainant on 18.8.2015 has moved an application for checking the meter and the same was marked to Sukhbir Singh JE, but till now no action has been taken and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondents have submitted that  the bills for the period 11/10 to 11/15 were issued on average basis.  In 7/15 the reading of the meter was 27813.  On the basis of this reading, the complainant’s account was overhauled and a credit of Rs.6611/- was calculated and payable to the complainant.  On the basis of reading of 27813, the average consumption was calculated as 961 bimonthly.    The bill issued to the complainant is legal and the amount of Rs.6611/- is adjustable from the billed amount of Rs.1,92,388/-.  The bill dated 8.8.2015 issued to the complainant is legal and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

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.  

         Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that On 8.8.2015, the respondents have issued the electricity bill for Rs.27804/- on average basis by showing the old unit of meter as 0 and new reading was shown as 27813.  The complainant on 18.8.2015 has moved an application for checking the meter and the same was marked to Sukhbir Singh JE, but till now no action has been taken and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents have submitted that the bills for the period 11/10 to 11/15 were issued on average basis.  In 7/15 the reading of the meter was 27813.  On the basis of this reading, the complainant’s account was overhauled and a credit of Rs.6611/- was calculated and payable to the complainant.  On the basis of reading of 27813, the average consumption was calculated as 961 bimonthly.    The bill issued to the complainant is legal and the amount of Rs.6611/- is adjustable from the billed amount of Rs.1,92,388/-.  The bill dated 8.8.2015 issued to the complainant is legal and the complainant is legally liable to pay the same to the respondents.

 

          Today (20.5.2016) Sh. Naresh Kumar LDC/CA has made a statement that in the disputed bill after overhauling the account, they will adjust the amount of Rs.20721/- with surcharge in the current bill.

 

          During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for

the respondents has placed on record the copy of current bill (JN/R/2) and the gross amount payable is Rs.1,11,994/- and the respondent will adjust Rs.20721/- against the current bill amount of Rs.1,11,994/- and the remaining amount shall be paid by the complainant.

 

          In the present case, the respondents have admitted that they have issued the bills for the period 11/10 to 11/15 to the complainant on average basis and in our view, issuance of the bills on average basis for the last more-than five years amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousand) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  However, we hereby direct the respondents to adjust the amount of compensation of Rs.5000/- and the amount of Rs.20721/- in the future bills of the complainant.

 

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

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

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

(Prabha Wati)                       (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF,                         President, DCDRF

Sonepat.                               Sonepat.

Announced 20.05.2016