Haryana

Sonipat

498/2013

HARSH S/O RAJBIR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

J.S. RUHIL

12 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.498 of 2013

                                Instituted on:30.12.2013.

                                Date of order:16.06.2015

 

Harsh son of Rajbir son of Sube Singh son of Munshi Ram, resident of near CRZ school, West Ram Nagar, Sonepat.                                     

                                                     ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

SDO UHBVN Ltd.  Industrial Area Sub Division, Sonepat.              

 

                                                     …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.  JS Ruhil, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh.  SK Dahiya, Adv. For respondent.                

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the user of electricity connection no.NN-12/1097-Y.  The electricity meter of the premises got defective.  During the period  2/13, 4/13 and 6/13 the respondent sent the bills on average basis.  The complainant was shocked to receive a bill dated 11.10.2013 in which the respondent showed the units consumed as 1455 for Rs.56721/-.  Again the respondent issued a bill dated 10.12.2013 for Rs.61355/-.  The complainant on receipt of the said bill requested to the respondent to rectify the 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 electricity connection stands in the name of Munshi Ram.  The meter of the complainant became  defective and the same was replaced on 19.6.2013 vide MCO NO.87/487.  The bill was issued to the complainant on average basis.  When the meter was replaced, the unit was 6317 in the meter.  The bill dated 11.10.2013 for Rs.46728/- was rightly issued to the complainant.  Similarly the bill dated 10.12.2013 for Rs.61355/- is also correct and legal and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent while issuing the said bills to the complainant and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the bills dated 11.10.2013 and 10.12.2013 worth Rs.56721/- and Rs.61355/- were issued to the complainant wrongly and illegally by the respondent and the same are liable to be rectified.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the meter of the complainant became  defective and the same was replaced on 19.6.2013 vide MCO NO.87/487.  The bill was issued to the complainant on average basis.  When the meter was replaced, the unit was 6317 in the meter.  The bill dated 11.10.2013 for Rs.46728/- was rightly issued to the complainant.  Similarly the bill dated 10.12.2013 for Rs.61355/- is also correct and legal and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent while issuing the said bills to the complainant.

          In the present case, the respondent has issued a bill amounting to Rs.56721/- dated 11.10.2013.  In this bill an amount of Rs.46728/- were charged on account of arrears.  This bill was not paid by the complainant. Another bill dated 10.12.2013 for Rs.61355/- was issued to the complainant and in this bill, the arrears to the tune ofRs.58388/- were mentioned.  The complainant deposited the bill dated 11.6.2013 in the office of the respondent.

          The perusal of the bills placed on record by the complainant itself shows that the complainant is disputing regarding the arrears mentioned in the bill dated 11.10.2013 amounting to Rs.46728/-.

          At the time of arguments, it was submitted by the respondent by placing on record the document JN that the account of the complainant was overhauled by the respondent  and total outstanding amount against the bill dated 10.12.2013 comes to Rs.25137/- against the arrears to the tune of Rs.46728/-.

          Vide order dated 10.1.2014 the complainant was directed to deposit 25% amount of Rs.46728/- and if the said 25% amount qua Rs.46728/- was deposited by the complainant with the respondent, in that event, after deducting the said 25% amount deposited qua Rs.46728/- which comes to approximately Rs.11682/-, the complainant is directed to pay Rs.13455/- (Rs.25137 – 11682 (25% of Rs.46728/-) with the respondent within one month from the date of passing of this order.  The complainant is also directed that he shall pay the current bills regularly with the respondent as and when issued to him.  The present complaint, thus, 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:16.06.2015