Haryana

Sonipat

258/2014

KAMAL HOODA S/O KARTAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO SUB DIVISION UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Bhopal Singh

12 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                Complaint No.258 of 2014

Instituted on: 29.09.2014                                                     

Date of order:  12.04.2016

 

 

Kamal Hooda son of Kartar Singh r/o Arashray, Gali no.3A, Mayur Vihar, Gohana road, Sonepat.

…Complainant.          Versus

SDO UHBVN  City Sub Division Sonepat.

                                                                                                …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Bhopal Singh, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Jaideep Kaushik, Advocate for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          Prabha Wati-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 account no.GL-13-1178 now CT-16-2187H. In the year 2011 meter of the complainant got theft by someone and written complaint in this regard was made to the respondent. The respondent sent the bills on average basis. But during the period 9/11 to 9/12 the respondent wrongly charged 1000 units bimonthly instead of 500 units. The complainant has requested the respondent to install the new meter but of no use. However, after a great persuation, the respondent installed a new meter vide MCO no.55/759 dated 1.12.2013 but the said meter not worked properly. The complainant requested the respondent to replace the same, but of no use.   However, the respondent has overhauled the account of the complainant and asked the complainant to deposit Rs.13566/- as outstanding amount and the complainant has deposited Rs.19000/- i.e. outstanding amount alongwith current bill amount for the period 5/14 vide receipt dated 20.5.2014 and thereafter no amount was due towards the complainant.  But despite this, the respondent issued the bill for the month of 8/14 in which the respondent again has shown Rs.61287/- outstanding against the complainant and current bill was shown as Rs.14470/- on the basis of wrong units of 1950 and thus, total demand of Rs.75,757/- was paid by the respondent.  This demand of the complainant is wrong and illegal as the complainant has deposited Rs.13556/-  on 20.5.2014 and Rs.20000/- on 4.9.2014  against the bill for the month of 8/14 amounting to Rs14470/-  and in this way, the complainant has already deposited the excess amount of Rs.5530/- with the respondent. Thus, the respondent has issued the wrong and illegal bill of Rs.75,757/- to the complainant and has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondent has submitted that the amount of Rs.1,17,262/- is still due and payable by the complainant upto 3/15.  The complainant never made any complaint or any copy of FIR regarding theft of his meter was ever supplied to the respondent.  The respondent has righty charged 1000 units bimonthly from the complainant as per sales circular of the Nigam. The complainant has made part payment on several times.  But the bills sent to the complainant are correct and legal. New meter was installed in the premises of the complainant vide MCO no.55/759 dated 1.12.2013.  The said meter is properly working and showing correct consumption units. The complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.19000/- on 20.5.2014 against outstanding amount of Rs.66362/- and after adjusting the said amount of Rs.19000/-, an amount of Rs.47362/- was due and payable by the complainant. It is further submitted that the bill for the month of 8/14 was issued to the complainant for Rs.61287/-.  The next bill for Rs.75757/- showing the units consumed as 1950 units was issued to the complainant.  Now an amount of Rs.1,17,262/- is due and payable by the complainant upto 3/15 and the complainant is liable to pay the said amount to the respondent. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation 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.  

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondent wrongly and illegally has sent the bill for the month of 8/14 thereby demanding Rs.75757/- from the complainant.

         The complainant has submitted the document Annexure A1 to H1 in support of his case.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the amount of Rs.1,17,262/- is still due and payable by the complainant upto 3/15.  The complainant never made any complaint or any copy of FIR regarding theft of his meter was ever supplied to the respondent.  The respondent has righty charged 1000 units bimonthly from the complainant as per sales circular of the Nigam. The complainant has made part payment on several times.  But the bills sent to the complainant are correct and legal. New meter was installed in the premises of the complainant vide MCO no.55/759 dated 1.12.2013.  The said meter is properly working and showing correct consumption units. The complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.19000/- on 20.5.2014 against outstanding amount of Rs.66362/- and after adjusting the said amount of Rs.19000/-, an amount of Rs.47362/- was due and payable by the complainant. It is further submitted that the bill for the month of 8/14 was issued to the complainant for Rs.61287/-.  The next bill for Rs.75757/- showing the units consumed as 1950 units was issued to the complainant.  Now an amount of Rs.1,17,262/- is due and payable by the complainant upto 3/15 and the complainant is liable to pay the said amount to the respondent. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

         The respondent has submitted the document Ex.R1 in support of their case.

         During the pendency of the present complaint, the complainant has filed an application for the replacement of the meter and has prayed to direct the respondent to replace the meter and to overhaul the account of the complainant as per the actual consumption of electricity energy.

         Reply to this application was filed by the respondent submitting therein that the meter of the complainant is working properly and is giving correct consumption reading and it needs not to be replaced and there is also no requirement of overhauling the account of the complainant.

         In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if the directions to replace the existing meter with new electricity meter is given to the respondent. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to replace the existing electricity meter with new electricity meter at the premises of the complainant and after taking three bimonthly reading, the respondent is hereby directed to overhaul the account of the complainant w.e.f. 7/14 till date and to issue the revised bill to the complainant for the said period and amount.

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

         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  12.04.2016