Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/827/2013

Om Parkash S/o Mangat Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O. UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Saini

24 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                              Complaint No. 827 of 2013.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 19.11.2013.

                                                                                              Date of decision: 24.05.2016

 

Om Parkash @ Parkash Chand aged about 65 years son of Sh. Mangat Ram, resident of H. No. 77, Near Spring Delas Public School, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.       

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              …Complainant.

 

                                    Versus

1. S.D.O. UHBVN Ltd. Sub Division Jagadhri City Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. XEN, UHBVN Ltd. Jagadhri, Sub Division Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.  
3. Managing Director, Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

                                                                                                             ...Respondents.  

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Surjeet Singh Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant. 

              Sh.  R.K.Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for respondents.    

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Om Parkash @ Parkash Chand  has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (herein after referred as OPs) be directed to correct the illegal and frivolous electricity bills dated 11.09.2013 and 12.11.2013 and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is having an electricity connection bearing account No. Y31JC143677X at his residence and he was depositing the electricity bills regularly without any default. The Ops sent a bill in the month of May, 2013 amount of Rs. 3238/- which was deposited by the complainant on 14.05.2013, after that the OPs sent a bill in the month of July 2013 amounting to Rs. 8671/- which was deposited by the complainant on 10.07.2013. Thereafter, the OPs sent a false and frivolous bill amounting to Rs. 21,292/- dated 11.09.2013 and after receiving the abovesaid bill, the complainant visited the office of Op No.1 and requested to correct the same and to receive the actual consumption bill but the OP No.1 postpone the matter on one pretext or the other. Now again the OPs sent an illegal and frivolous bill amounting to Rs. 34,636/-( including previous bill) dated 12.11.2013 which is quite illegal, wrong, null and void and after receiving the same, the complainant approached the OP No.1 and requested to correct the abovesaid electricity bill amount and to receive the actual consumption charges but the OP No.1 put off the matter and then the OPs openly threatened to disconnect the electricity connection, which is quite illegal, wrong and against the natural justice. The OPs by sending the illegal bills and by not correcting and withdrawing the illegal bills has committed deficiency and negligence in service and also played unfair trade practice, due to which the complainant has suffering a lot of mental agony and harassment. Hence, this complaint.   

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action to file and maintain the present complaint, no deficiency in service, complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the electricity connection bearing No. JC-14-3677 released in the name of complainant and demand bill was sent to the complainant as per meter reading and actual consumption of the electricity. In the meantime, complainant moved an application on 17.12.2013 to remove his defective meter and consequently the electricity meter of the complainant has been replaced with new meter, vide MCO No. 13/1529 dated 17.12.2013 effected on 20.12.2013, thereby the complainant is very much liable to pay the amount of previous demand bill, but in order to save his skin from his liability, the complainant has filed the present complaint only for harassing the OPs. On merit, denied all the contents of complaint and lastly prayed for dismissal of as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of electricity bill bearing No. 2542 dated 28.04.2013 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Bill No. 2571 dated 23.06.2013 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of bill No. 2567 dated 25.08.2013 as Annexure C-3,  Photo copy of bill No. 2561 dated 26.10.2013 as Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs also tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. S.L.Goyal, SDO (OP), UHBVNL, Jagadhri as Annexure RW/A and documents such as photo copy of application for replacement of meter as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of MCO dated 17.12.2013 as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of consumption data as Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

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

7.                     The only grievances of the complainant is that in the month of September 2013 and November, 2013 he received electricity bills showing exaggerated consumption charges to the tune of Rs. 21,292/- vide bill dated 11.09.2013 and Rs. 34,636/- vide bill dated 12.11.2013 including previous bill, copy of which is Annexure C-3 and C-4 whereas the complainant not used so much units and these bills have been falsely issued.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Ops hotly argued at length that electricity bills were issued to the complainant on actual consumption basis and referred the account statement Annexure R-3.

9.                     We have perused the account statement Annexure R-3 carefully and minutely from which it is evident that in the month of April, 2013 consumption of units have been shown as 540, in the month of June,2013 consumption of units have been shown as 1295, in the month of August, 2013 consumption of units have been shown as 2833 and in the month of October, 2013 consumption of units have been shown as 1666 and in December, 2013 consumption of units have been shown as 445 and after that in February 2014 MCO was effected. In the present complaint the bill dated 8/13 and 10/13 has been challenged by the complainant but from the perusal of account statement it is clear that the impugned bill has been issued on actual consumption basis. If the meter of the complainant was dead or defective then consumption of 445 units was not possible in the month of 12/2013. As the bill for the month of August,2013 & Oct. 2013 is relating to the period of 06/2013 to 09/2013 which is peak season of summer days and further in the absence of any cogent evidence that the meter in question was defective or was not working properly it cannot be presumed that the impugned bill has been wrongly issued for huge consumption. We have also perused the application dated 17.12.2013 moved by the complainant (Annexure R-1) and in this application complainant has nowhere mentioned that his meter was lying dead or defective from the last how much period. Further, this application has been moved after 4 months of the impugned bill of August 2013. So, the complainant cannot take the benefits of this application. Even mere if the consumption of units are on higher side from the previous consumption units, it cannot be presumed that meter for the relating period was defective. Complainant himself admitted in his complaint that he is ready to pay the bill as per actual consumption. So, in the absence of cogent evidence that bills were sent not as per actual consumption, how, he can save himself from making the payment of impugned bills.

10                    In the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as the bills have been issued to the complainant on actual consumption charges. Even in the bills Annexure C-1 to C-4 the status of the meter has been shown as O.K.

11                    Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 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 in open court.

Dated: 24.05.2016.

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                                 (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                                  MEMBER