BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.197/13.

Date of instt.: 17.09.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 09.01.2015.

Murti Devi W/o Sh. Mangat R/o H.No.254/19-A, HUDA, Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Secretary, Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

2. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its S.D.O., O.P. S/Divn. No.2, UHBVN, Kaithal.

3. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its S.D.O., O.P.S/Divn.

..……..Opposite Parties.

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

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. S.S.Malik, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is having electricity connection No.X-42/KA-241092H with the Ops and he is paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that the complainant received the bill dt. 10.08.2013 for an amount of Rs.62,464/- in which the Ops imposed Rs.45,598/- as average adjustment without giving any opportunity of hearing.  It is further alleged that on enquiry, the Ops told that the meter of complainant was defective for the period 05.07.2010 to 06.03.2011 and the Ops charged the amount on average of period 7/2011 to 11/2011 though as per sales circular No.29/11 , the Ops can charge the average of same period.  The said bill is wrong and illegal.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, it is stated that the bill dt. 08/2013 of the Ops have rightly issued for an amount of Rs.62,464/- in which Rs.45,598/- are charged recovery due to shortfall in electricity consumption units charged in view of provisional billing during the period (from 08/2010 to 04/2011) the meter remained defective vide sales circular No.U-29/2011.  The account of the consumer was overhauled on the basis of new meter consumption from 8/2011 to 12/2011 (six months) as per report of internal audit department of UHBVN.  So, an amount of Rs.45,598/- was charged legally on the account of consumer, as the Ops are legally entitled to recover the same.  The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.   

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is having electricity connection No.X-42/KA-241092H with the Ops and he is paying the bills regularly.  The complainant received the bill dt. 10.08.2013 for an amount of Rs.62,464/- in which the Ops imposed Rs.45,598/- as average adjustment without giving any opportunity of hearing.  On enquiry, the Ops told that the meter of complainant was defective for the period 05.07.2010 to 06.03.2011 and the Ops charged the amount on average of period 7/2011 to 11/2011.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops contends that the bill dt. 08/2013 of the Ops have rightly issued for an amount of Rs.62,464/- in which Rs.45,598/- are charged recovery due to shortfall in electricity consumption units charged in view of provisional billing during the period (from 08/2010 to 04/2011) the meter remained defective vide sales circular No.U-29/2011.  The account of the consumer was overhauled on the basis of new meter consumption from 8/2011 to 12/2011 (six months) as per report of internal audit department of UHBVN.  So, an amount of Rs.45,598/- was charged legally on the account of consumer, as the Ops are legally entitled to recover the same.  In this regard, ld. Counsel for the Ops submitted an authority reported as Biswananth Mukherjee Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Board & others, 2012(1) CPJ page 47 (NC), wherein it has been held that Electricity-Excessive bill-Tampering-Slow meter-Complaint filed and quashing of excessive bill as-well-as compensation for mental agony sought-Complaint allowed-Appeal before State Commission-Allowed and complaint dismissed-Hence, present revision petition before National Commission-Correct course for consumer with a dispute regarding correctness of electricity meter or of billed electricity consumption would be to apply to Electrical Inspector designated-Petitioner had not adopted said course-In view of above, no infirmity found in impugned order and the same is upheld.  The said authority is fully applicable to the present case.  So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Op.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.09.01.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.197/13.

Date of instt.: 17.09.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 09.01.2015.

Murti Devi W/o Sh. Mangat R/o H.No.254/19-A, HUDA, Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Secretary, Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

2. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its S.D.O., O.P. S/Divn. No.2, UHBVN, Kaithal.

3. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its S.D.O., O.P.S/Divn.

..……..Opposite Parties.

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

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. S.S.Malik, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is having electricity connection No.X-42/KA-241092H with the Ops and he is paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that the complainant received the bill dt. 10.08.2013 for an amount of Rs.62,464/- in which the Ops imposed Rs.45,598/- as average adjustment without giving any opportunity of hearing.  It is further alleged that on enquiry, the Ops told that the meter of complainant was defective for the period 05.07.2010 to 06.03.2011 and the Ops charged the amount on average of period 7/2011 to 11/2011 though as per sales circular No.29/11 , the Ops can charge the average of same period.  The said bill is wrong and illegal.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, it is stated that the bill dt. 08/2013 of the Ops have rightly issued for an amount of Rs.62,464/- in which Rs.45,598/- are charged recovery due to shortfall in electricity consumption units charged in view of provisional billing during the period (from 08/2010 to 04/2011) the meter remained defective vide sales circular No.U-29/2011.  The account of the consumer was overhauled on the basis of new meter consumption from 8/2011 to 12/2011 (six months) as per report of internal audit department of UHBVN.  So, an amount of Rs.45,598/- was charged legally on the account of consumer, as the Ops are legally entitled to recover the same.  The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.   

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is having electricity connection No.X-42/KA-241092H with the Ops and he is paying the bills regularly.  The complainant received the bill dt. 10.08.2013 for an amount of Rs.62,464/- in which the Ops imposed Rs.45,598/- as average adjustment without giving any opportunity of hearing.  On enquiry, the Ops told that the meter of complainant was defective for the period 05.07.2010 to 06.03.2011 and the Ops charged the amount on average of period 7/2011 to 11/2011.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops contends that the bill dt. 08/2013 of the Ops have rightly issued for an amount of Rs.62,464/- in which Rs.45,598/- are charged recovery due to shortfall in electricity consumption units charged in view of provisional billing during the period (from 08/2010 to 04/2011) the meter remained defective vide sales circular No.U-29/2011.  The account of the consumer was overhauled on the basis of new meter consumption from 8/2011 to 12/2011 (six months) as per report of internal audit department of UHBVN.  So, an amount of Rs.45,598/- was charged legally on the account of consumer, as the Ops are legally entitled to recover the same.  In this regard, ld. Counsel for the Ops submitted an authority reported as Biswananth Mukherjee Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Board & others, 2012(1) CPJ page 47 (NC), wherein it has been held that Electricity-Excessive bill-Tampering-Slow meter-Complaint filed and quashing of excessive bill as-well-as compensation for mental agony sought-Complaint allowed-Appeal before State Commission-Allowed and complaint dismissed-Hence, present revision petition before National Commission-Correct course for consumer with a dispute regarding correctness of electricity meter or of billed electricity consumption would be to apply to Electrical Inspector designated-Petitioner had not adopted said course-In view of above, no infirmity found in impugned order and the same is upheld.  The said authority is fully applicable to the present case.  So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Op.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.09.01.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.