Haryana

Sonipat

CC/476/2015

Chander Bhan S/o Mange Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O. UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                Complaint No.476 of 2015

Instituted on: 24.12.2015                                                     

Date of order:  01.07.2016

 

 

Chander Bhan son of Mange Ram, resident of Ward no.1, Mohalla Jatwara, Sonepat.

…Complainant.          Versus

SDO  UHBVN  City Zone Sonepat.

                                                                                                …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

           Shri Jagdeep Balyan, Advocate for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          Prabha Wati-Member.

           J.L. Gupta-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 electricity connection no.CT-19-2069.  On 30.9.2015 he has moved an application before the respondent for the replacement of his defective meter.  The complainant after the report of the concerned JE, has deposited Rs.1000/- in the office of the respondent.  But the respondent has issued the bill for Rs.5571/- on 14.12.2015 to the complainant.  The complainant has moved an application for rectification of the said bill, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondent has submitted that the bill has been issued by the respondent as per rules and regulations of the Nigam and the same are correct, legal and binding upon the rights of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the submissions of the complainant and learned counsel for the respondent at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.  

4.       Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the bill has been issued by the respondent as per rules and regulations of the Nigam and the same are correct, legal and binding upon the rights of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

         As per the complainant, he has moved an application on dated 30.9.2015 for replacement of the meter and the same was checked by the respondent officials.  As per report made on the back side of Annexure C-2, meter working was found stopped.  The meter of the complainant was replaced by the respondent officials.

         The bare perusal of the document Annexure C5 shows that the respondent official issued a bill amounting to Rs.390/- and consumed units have been shown as 82 and the bill was issued on 7.9.2015.

         After that another bill was issued, in which consumed units have been shown as 118.  This bill was issued on 26.10.2015 for the period 22.7.2015 to 22.9.2015.

         In the bills Annexure C5 and C6, the consumed units for the month of 2/15 have been shown as 80, for the month of 4/15 it is 89, for the month of 7/15 it is 90, for the month of 8/15 it is 82 and for the period 22.7.2015 to 22.9.2015 it is 118 units, meaning thereby for 5 bimonthly bills from February to October, the consumed units of the complainant were 80, 89, 90, 82 and 118.  The respondent has issued the bill for the consumed units as 815 on dated 28.12.2015 and has demanded a sum of Rs.5601 from the complainant for the period w.e.f. 22.9.2015 to 22.11.2015.  The perusal of the bill further shows that the supply voltage of the complainant was 0.23 KV, which is very meager.  This demand of the respondent is malafide, illegal and without any base.  As per the sale circular of the Nigam, the average of three bimonthly bills should have taken into consideration for the defected period.  So, in our view, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent officials that they should take the base for the month of February, April, July and August/2015.  Accordingly, it is directed to the respondent to rectify the bill dated 28.12.2015 of the complainant after taking into consideration the base for the month of 2/15, 4/15,7/15 and 8/15 and after doing the needful, the respondent shall issue the revised bill to the complainant.

         Further at the time of arguments, the complainant has placed on record the document Annexure JN/A.  This document is an application moved by the complainant before the respondent officials.  The complainant has mentioned in this application that as per consumption reading, the bill has not been issued by the respondent.  This application was moved by the complainant on 7.6.2016 and a report was made by the concerned JE on 8.6.2016.  As per the report, the consumed units of the new meter were 235 units.  Whereas the perusal of the document Annexure C7 and C8 shows that as per annexure C7, the consumed units were 15 and the same is correct.  But it is very strange that in the document Annexure C8, the billed units are shown as 408, whereas the complainant had paid upto 105 units.  So, in our view, the bill dated 28.4.2016 in which consumed units have been shown as 408, also needs to be rectified.  Thus, we also hereby direct the respondent to rectify the bill dated 28.4.2016 after taking  into consideration the meter reading of new healthy meter.  The respondent is also directed to issue the revised bill to the complainant after rectifying the bill dated 28.4.2016. The complainant present in this Forum himself has submitted that he is ready to pay the bills as per his consumption.  Since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, the respondent is also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousand) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. However, this amount of compensation is hereby directed to be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant.

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

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

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

(Prabha Wati) (J.L.Gupta)        (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF, Member, DCDRF      President, DCDRF

                                       Sonepat.

Dated 01.07.2016