Haryana

Panchkula

CC/323/2016

SMT. MADHU GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO,OP DIVN UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

TARSEM GARG

13 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                         

Consumer Complaint No.	:	323 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	05.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.09.2017

 

Smt. Madhu Garg, H. No. 125, Sector 4, Panchkula, presently residing at H. No. 1641, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1. SDO ‘OP’ S/Divn UHBVNL, A-27 Sub Urban Panchkula.
2. The XEN/OP Division UHBVNL Panchkula

 

                                                                   ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr. Jagmohan Singh, Member

 

For the Parties:     Mr. R.P.Singh, authorized representative for the complainant.

                             Mr. Y.P.Rana, Adv., for the Ops.

 

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that she has an electric connection for domestic supply having sanctioned load of 9.20 KW, A/C No. 0423450000.  Complainant received Bill No. 042341636393 dated 01.07.2016 for the period of two months from 25.04.2016 to 25.06.2016 for Rs. 14,887.87/-. The consumption in this period was only 42 units. The previous consumption pattern was mentioned in the bills and the consumption pattern of the complainant was very less. The complainant approached to the Ops for correction of the bill as per average/previous consumption trend. The complainant wrote a letter dated 09.07.2016 to the Ops for correction of bill. The complainant requested that the electric meter may be checked and the bill may be revised/rectified on average basis of previous consumption pattern. The due date for payment of inflated bill was 18.07.2016 and the complainant wrote a letter dated 09.07.2016 well before due date of payment and she also mentioned in the letter that there was a credit balance of Rs. 12,763.47/-. The Ops have not taken any action on the request of the complainant. On 01.07.2016, the complainant filed a complaint against the Ops in the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum at UHBVN C-6, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula, but the Forum shifted to the Kurukshetra and complainant approached to Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum UHBVN Kurukshetra requesting for correction of bill and not to disconnect the electric connection till the matter is decided by the Forum. Thereafter, the complainant again approached the Hon’ble Consumer Grievances Redresssal Forum UHBVN, Kurukshetra vide letter dated 06.10.2016 for resolving the matter and accepting the payment of next bill received for the period from 25.06.2016 to 25.08.2016, the consumption of the said period was 382 units. The Ops have refused to accept the bill. On 08.11.2016 the complainant again approached to the Ops for resolving the matter as instructed by the Hon’ble Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum UHBVN, Kurukshetra but the Ops have not listened the request of the complainant. The complainant received bill for the period from 25.08.2016 to 25.10.2016 and the consumption in this bill was 25 units only. The complainant approached to the Ops for payment of bill and resolve the matter but Ops have refused to accept the payment of the bill and disconnected the supply. The disputed bills were in excess of Rs. 46,227/-. The complainant requested the Ops many times for correcting the bill and accepting the payment as per procedure but Ops have never paid any attention towards the genuine request of complainant and not resolved the matter. On 22.11.2016, the complainant deposited Rs. 39,500/- for resorting the electric supply. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Op appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable. It is submitted that from the Month of May, 2015 till November, 2015 the premises of the complainant was found locked by the meter read, therefore, the Ops used to issue the bill on minimum/load basis and the complainant used to deposit the bills. It is submitted that January, 2016, the premises of the complainant was found opened and then the meter reader noted down the reading and she used to pay the electricity bill till March, 2016.  The Ops have issued the bill of Rs. 14,887/87 for 5253 units including the surcharge etc.  It is submitted that the complainant received the bill of Rs. 44,887.87/- was issued by the Ops for the period from 25.04.2016 to 25.06.2016. It is submitted that the complainant sent the letter to the Ops and it was verbally instructed to the complainant to deposit the meter checking fee for the same but the complainant has not deposited the requisite fee for the same. It is submitted that the electricity meter of the complainant was in OK condition. It is submitted that the officials of the Ops visited the complainant and firstly the premises was found locked and visited 2-3 times by the officials, the complainant found at her residence and she was instructed to deposit the fee for checking purpose but to no avail. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement of Ops has been filed by the complainant.
4. The authorized representative for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the authorized representative for the Ops has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and have perused the record. On appreciation of the material available on record, we are of the view that the complaint requires to be allowed. We proceed to record the reasoning in support of the view hereunder.  
6. The pure and simple averment by the complainant is that the meter was jumping and it was therefore that she had asked the Ops for the checking of the meter. That part of the averment has not been controverted by the Ops which have, however, averred that the checking of the meter could not be undertaken as the complainant had not deposited the relevant amount of fees.
7. The averment by the Ops cannot be accepted. Here was a party (complainant in this case) who had asked for the checking of the meter. It was for the Ops to ask her to deposit the relevant amount of fee. If the complainant were not the deposit that amount, the Ops could be validly heard to make the above averment. For want of even an averment that the complainant had been asked to deposit the relevant amount of fees, the Ops cannot validly controvert the plea on behalf of the complainant that the default is on the part of the Ops to get the meter checked.
8. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the electricity connection under reference was for a domestic purpose. It is also evident from the record that the complainant had been billed for consumption of 54 units only for the period 25.07.2016 to 25.10.2016. The complainant has made a precise averment except for the issuance of one time bill for Rs. 46227/-, the meter had always shown a much lesser consumption. The ops denied that averment. The entire record is in the possession of the Ops and it was upto them to produce the relevant record to controvert the contention of the complainant she had been billed for a much lesser amount earlier.
9. The Ops have not proved to have acted in a manner expected from a governmental dispensation. If a consumer makes a grievance, the Ops ought to adopt a responsive attitude. The Ops have not controverted the averment by the complainant that the communication dated 08.11.2016 issued by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, UHBVN, Kurukshetra (where this matter was taken up earlier) notwithstanding, the Ops did not resolve the grievance of the complainant. The Ops were duty bound to take a view in the matter of the grievance made by the complainant, either way, with the expeditious dispatch and avoid forcing the complainant to litigate.
10. We would, accordingly allow this complaint and direct the Ops to refund the excess amount charged for the complainant. The Ops shall also be liable to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as the compensation for mental harassment caused to the complainant and an equal amount as the cost of litigation.
11. The Ops shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to them comes about. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

13.09.2017    JAGMOHAN SINGH    ANITA KAPOOR   DHARAM PAL

                        MEMBER                 MEMBER               PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                          

                                            

                                                                   ANITA KAPOOR                                                                                                MEMBER