Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/392/2015

Subhash Chand S/o Ramkirat - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Complainant Inperson

03 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                        Complaint No. 392  of  2015.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 03.11.2015.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 03.01.2017.

Subhash Chand aged about 34 years son of Sh. Ramkirat, resident of Sunder Vihar Colony, Kansapur, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. The S.D.O. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Sub Division, I.T.I. Yamuna Nagar.
2. The Executive Engineer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     … Respondents.

                            

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Complainant in person.     

               Sh. Sushil Garg, Advocate, counsel for respondents. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                         The present complaint has been filed by Subhash Chand under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                   Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No. Y47YF021629F with the sanctioned load of 1 KW. The complainant has been using only one bulb in the night till filing of the complaint as there is no complete fitting in his house.. The complainant was very astonished on receiving the bill dated 10.08.2015 amounting to Rs. 2503/- which was highly exaggerated. However, the complainant paid the same on 25.08.2015. After that, respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs Nigam) also issued a bill dated 26.10.2015 amounting to Rs. 3845/- which was also highly exaggerated. Upon this, complainant moved an application to the OPs Nigam to rectify the bills in question and to check the meter of the complainant. Even after that complainant moved so many applications but all in vain. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to check his electricity meter and if found defective the same be replaced with new one and also to quash the electricity bill in question. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed its written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs Nigam as the OPs Nigam issued the electricity bills time to time as per actual consumption of the electricity used by the complainant as per his requirement, hence, the complaint is not maintainable; complainant has not approach this Forum with clean hands and on merit it has been admitted that complainant is subscriber of domestic electricity connection bearing account No. YF02/1629 having sanctioned load of 1 KW and since installation of the aforesaid connection the OPs Nigam has been raising the electricity bills as per meter reading rightly and legally and issued the bill dated 10.08.2015 due date as 27.08.2015 for 387 units against the meter reading ( New reading 2083- 1696 old = 387 units) amounting to Rs. 2503/- as per actual usage. It has been further mentioned that the OPs Nigam also issued a bill dated 26.10.2015 for a sum of Rs. 3845/- as per actual consumption of the electric units duly consumed by the complainant having consumed 578 units, hence the bill in question was correctly issued by the OPs Nigam and there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs Nigam and complainant is liable to pay the same. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of application dated 16.10.2015 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of bill dated 10.05.2015 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of bill dated 10.08.2015 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of bill dated 09.10.2015 as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of bill dated 08.04.2016 as Annexure C-5 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of Manish Sharma, SDO (Operation) UHBVN ITI, Yamuna Nagar as Annexue RW/A and documents such as attested photo copy of ledger account of the complainant as Annexure R-1,  Attested photo copy of consumption data as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

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

7.                      The only version of the complainant is that OPs Nigam has issued the electricity bills showing exaggerated amount as well as units consumed by the complainant in the bill dated 10.08.2015 wrongly typed as 27.08.2015 amounting to Rs. 2503/- and in the bill dated 26.10.2015 amounting to Rs. 3845/- which are totally illegal and wrong and the same are liable to be quashed. Complainant draw our attention towards the application Annexure C-1 moved on 16.10.2015 in which he has mentioned that electricity meter has become defective and after checking may kindly be replaced and requested that despite this application the OPs Nigam did not pay any heed to his genuine request.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs Nigam argued at length that a false complaint has been filed just to get the undue benefits whereas no truth is attached with the allegations mentioned in the complaint. The electricity bills were issued to the complainant as per actual consumption. Learned counsel for the OPs draw our attention towards the copy of ledger Annexure R-1 and report of consumption data as Annexure R-2 and argued that the electricity bills were issued to the complainant as per actual consumption since its installation. Further, learned counsel for the OPs draw our attention towards the electricity bills Annexure C-2, C-3, C-4 and C-5 in which the status of the meter has been shown as O.K. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs Nigam as from the perusal of electricity bills Annexure C-2 to C-5 as well as ledger  account Annexure R-1 and R-2, it is duly evident that the status of the electricity meter of the complainant has been shown as O.K and electricity bills were issued as per actual consumption to the complainant. The complainant has filed only one application dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure C-1) in support of his case except this one no cogent evidence has been placed on file to prove that the electricity meter of the complainant was running fast or defective. Even from the perusal of this application (Annexure C-1), it is duly evident that in this application complainant has not mentioned even a single iota of word that the OPs Nigam has issued illegal bills showing exaggerated unit as well as amount. As such, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs Nigam. Hence, we have no option except to dismiss the complaint of complainant.

10.                   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: 03.01.2017.

 

 

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                              (S.C.SHARMA)                                 PRESIDENT

                               MEMBER                                         DCDRF,YAMUNANAGAR