Haryana

Sonipat

333/2014

KASHMIRI LAL S/O RAM DIYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO UHBVNL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Mannu malik

05 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.333 of 2014

                                Instituted on:04.12.2014

                                Date of order:09.10.2015

 

Kashmiri Lal son of Ram Diya, r/o RK Colony, Murthal, Distt. Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

SDO UHBVN, Sub Urban Sub Division, Murthal (office situated in RK Colony) Distt. Sonepat.

                                                     …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Mannu Malik, Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. Kamal Hooda Adv. for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

DV Rathi-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 new account no.MU-17-1264-P.  The respondent issued the bill dated 26.1.2014 for Rs.6360/- for the period 7.11.2013 to 7.1.2014. Thereafter the respondent issued the bill dated 25.3.2014 for Rs.34202/- for the period 7.1.2014 to 7.3.2014.  The complainant has moved an application on 14.4.2014 for replacement of the new meter as the existing meter was running fast.   The meter was checked  and as per report of Rakesh LM, the meter was found running fast.   But despite this, the respondent did not correct the bill to the tune of Rs.34202/-. Now again the respondent issued the bill dated 25.11.2014 for Rs.48630/- for the period 7.9.2014 to 7.11.2014 . The respondent instead of correcting the bill and replacing the meter of the complainant has disconnected the electricity supply of the complainant 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 bills issued to the complainant are correct, legal and justified. On the application moved by the complainant for replacement of the meter, the meter was replaced vide MCO no.22/467 dated 9.12.2014. Even after replacement of the meter, the consumption of the new meter was also found similar as that of previous meter.    Thus, the respondent has issued the bills rightly and correctly to the complainant. When the complainant has failed to make the payment of previous bills, the respondent disconnected the electricity supply of the premises of the complainant due to non-payment.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the same.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

4.        In the present case, ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondent instead of correcting the bill and replacing the meter of the complainant has disconnected the electricity supply of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  Further the respondent even after making the report by Rakesh Lineman that the meter is running fast, did not correct the bill to the tune of Rs.34202/- and again issued the bill dated 25.11.2014 for Rs.48630/- for the period 7.9.2014 to 7.11.2014 .

 

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the bills issued to the complainant are correct, legal and justified. On the application moved by the complainant for replacement of the meter, the meter was replaced vide MCO no.22/467 dated 9.12.2014. Even after replacement of the meter, the consumption of the new meter was also found similar as that of previous meter.    Thus, the respondent has issued the bills rightly and correctly to the complainant. When the complainant has failed to make the payment of previous bills, the respondent disconnected the electricity supply of the premises of the complainant due to non-payment.

          But keeping in view the evidence led by the complainant and admission of the respondent that the meter was found running fast, we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld.counsel for the respondent.  In our view, the respondent has issued wrong and illegal bill to the complainant and the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to the respondent.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to overhaul the account of the complainant for the period w.e.f. 1/14 to 11/14 after taking the base of meter reading for the period 1/15, 3/15 and 5/15 and after overhauling the account, the respondent are directed to issue the revised bill to the complainant. 

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

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

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 09.10.2015