Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/27/2021

Prithvi Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO (OP) DHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

Devender Kaswan

03 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,FATEHABAD.

                                                           Complaint No.27 of 2021.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 25.01.2021.

                                                           Date of Decision: 03.06.2024.

 

Pirthi Singh son of Lakhpat Ram resident of Pandri Tehsil Ratia District Fatehabad.

 

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1. SDO (OP) DHBVN, Bhuna Tehsil Ratia & District Fatehabad.
2. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad through its XEN (OP) Tohana District Fatehabad.

                                                                             …Opposite parties.

 

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

BEFORE:             Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.

                             Smt. Harisha Mehta, Presiding Member.

                             Dr.K.S.Nirania, Member

 

Argued by:            Sh.Devender Kaswan, Adv. for the complainant.

                             Sh.Anil Solra, Adv. for the Ops.

 

ORDER:

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

                            

1.                          The complainant has filed this complaint against the    OPs with the averments that he is a consumer of the Ops having domestic electric connection bearing account No.HG1D/0426 installed at village Pandri; that he has been making the payment of electricity bills regularly and there is nothing due against him till 31.12.2019; that the Ops have issued a bill amounting to Rs.38826/- with due date 22.09.2020 wherein consumed units have been shown as 2020 from 17.06.2020 to 18.06.2020; that on the asking of Ops, the complainant paid Rs.15,000/- but thereafter the meter of the complainant was removed by saying that the meter is having problem qua jumping of recording in units and further another meter was installed with assurance that it will record correct units; that the complainant was felt astonished when he received bimonthly bill of Rs.67789/- for the period 17.10.2020 to 17.12.2020 wherein the units have been shown as 4787; that the Ops have issued the bill on abnormal reading on account of jumping of meter and the bill is on highly excessive reading for which the complainant is not liable to pay the same; that the complainant requested the Ops to correct the bill on MMC basis  but to no avail. The act and conduct of Ops  clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2.                          The OPs appeared and filed their joint reply contesting the complaint of the complainant on various grounds. It has been submitted that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and he has neither locus standi nor cause of action to file the present complaint, therefore, the present compliant is not maintainable; that electricity bill amounting to Rs.38826/- was issued in the month of September 2020 as per consumed units of 2020; that on 05.10.2020, the complainant moved an application for sending the meter in M&T Lab Hisar for checking the meter and also deposited Rs.15,000/- and on 26.10.2020 an amount of Rs.24,955/- was due; that on 11.10.2020 the unit was recorded as 14910 and the bill for a sum of Rs.31,552/- including the balance amount was sent to the complainant which was not deposited by the complainant; that thereafter the meter of the complainant was removed on 29.10.2020 and at that time old meter reading was 19592 and new meter was installed on 29.10.2020 and new meter reading was 5428; that thereafter the Ops sent electricity bill amount to Rs.67789/- on correct and consumed units and the meter in the M&T lab was also found OK, therefore, the Ops have right to recover the amount of electricity bills from the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. Other pleas made in the complaint by the complainant have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3                           The complainant has tendered affidavit and document Ex.CW1/A with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 whereas the Ops have tendered document Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R6 in evidence.

4.                          Heard. We have examined the pleadings and documents of the parties very carefully.

5.                          Undisputedly, the meter of the complainant was changed and the reading at the time of installation of the new meter was  5428 and the reading in the old meter was 19592 (Annexure R3) and the old meter was sent to M&T lab for checking  and this document is duly signed by the complainant. In this document, the meter status has been written as working and the complainant has failed to produce contrary evidence to show that the meter was not recording the units correctly and the present units were recorded after jumping the meter. The Ops in their reply have specifically mentioned that the complainant had deposited Rs.15,000/- and on 26.10.2020 an amount of Rs.24,955/- was due and on 11.10.2020 the unit was recorded as 14910 and the bill for a sum of Rs.31,552/- including the balance amount was sent to the complainant which was not deposited by the complainant. Thereafter the meter of the complainant was removed on 29.10.2020 and at that time old meter reading was 19592 and new meter was installed on 29.10.2020 and new meter reading was 5428. The Ops have sent electricity bill amount to Rs.67789/- on correct and consumed units and the meter in the M&T lab was also found OK. The Ops in support of their pleas have also placed on record copy of ledger copy of the account No.HG1D-0426 of the complainant.  Since the MCO Annexure R3 is duly signed by the complainant himself, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at the conclusion that the complainant was very well aware about the recorded consumed units i.e. shown as 19592. Though the complainant has pleaded that his previous meter was jumping and recorded wrong consumed units but there is nothing on the case file to support of this plea.   Moreover, it is proved on the case file the consumed units have been shown in the MCO, therefore, the complainant is bound to make the payment thereof which was demanded by the Ops as sundry charges in the bill in question. It is a settled principle of law that the person who raises plea of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against any person/party, the burden always lies with the person who raised that plea, therefore without any proof of deficiency, the opposite parties cannot be held responsible for any deficiency in service but in the present case the complainant has not produced the best evidence in support of his contentions.

6.                          On the basis of above mentioned discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency in service at all or any unfair trade practice, on the part of any of the Ops, as alleged, so as to make any of them liable to any extent in this matter. Hence, the complaint is dismissed in view of the facts and circumstances stated above.  All the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.  This order be uploaded, forthwith, on the website of this Commission as per rules for the perusal of the parties. File be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 03.06.2024

 

 

                                                                                                        

          (K.S.Nirania)                    (Harisha Mehta)         (Rajbir Singh)                        

    Member                               Member                              President