BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.145/13.

Date of instt.: 22.07.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 15.09.2015.

Rajesh Kumar S/o Gaje Singh, resident of Malik Pur, Tehsil Siwan, District Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. S.D.O. Operation Sub Division, U.H.B.V.N. Siwan.

2. Executive Engineer, U.H.B.V.N. Guhla.

3. U.H.B.V.N. Limited through its Secretary, Sector-6, Panchkula.s

..……..Opposite Parties.

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

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. J.S.Pannu, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection No.X36K5116098A and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that the complainant received a bill dt. 27.03.2013 amounting to Rs.7726/- from the Ops whereby it was shown that 1297 units were consumed by the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant moved an application dt. 29.03.2013 regarding the checking of meter reading but the Ops did not take any action on this application so far.  It is further alleged that the complainant received another bill dt. 27.05.2013 amounting to Rs.27,432/- whereby, it was shown that the complainant consumed 2902 units.  The said bill is wrong, illegal and excessive.  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; jurisdiction;  that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  In fact, the complainant is a great manipulator and a regular defaulter.  Since March, 2013, he is paying nothing towards the electricity consumption bills.  Hence, the amount of unpaid electricity bills kept on accumulating and in the month of May, 2013 it became Rs.27,532/- and in the month of July, 2013 the total unpaid amount became as Rs.32089/- but the complainant failed to deposit the same.  Hence, the Ops disconnected the electricity of the complainant permanently.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.C-19 and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17 and closed evidence on 14.08.2014.  On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed evidence on 12.01.2015.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.  

5.     Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint.  He argued that the complainant received a bill dt. 27.03.2013 amounting to Rs.7726/-, whereby 1297 units consumed were shown in the said bill.  He further argued that the complainant moved an application dt. 29.03.2013 to S.D.O., Siwan regarding the correctness of bill but the Ops did not take any action on the said application rather they issued the bill dt. 27.05.2013 amounting to Rs.27,432/-.  The bills are wrong, illegal and excessive.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops controverted all the allegations contained in the complaint.  He argued that since March, 2013 he had paid nothing towards the electricity consumption bills.

6.     In view of facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence available on the file and on appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, we found that it is admitted case of the parties that the complainant is having domestic connection No.X36K5116098A.  When the complainant received bill dt. 27.03.2013 for an amount of Rs.7726/-, whereby 1297 units had been consumed, immediately thereafter the complainant moved an application Ex.C7 on 29.03.2013 regarding the checking of meter reading which was received by the Ops but the Ops did not take any action on the said application.  Even thereafter the Ops have issued a bill dt. 27.05.2013 amounting to Rs.27,432/-, whereby 2902 units have been shown consumed.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also placed on file the deposit receipt dt. 01.08.2013, Ex.C8 and deposit receipt dt. 10.11.2013, Ex.C10.  So, the contention of Ops that the complainant did not deposit the bills since March, 2013 carries no weight.  In this regard, we are guided with the instructions of U.H.B.V.N. and as per instruction No.116, it has been mentioned as under:-

Difference or Dispute over the Accuracy.

        Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter is or is not correct, the matter should be decided, upon the application by either party by the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as amended from time to time and if in his opinion, the meter is not correct, the Electrical Inspector shall estimate the amount of adjustment to be carried out in the consumer’s account for a period not exceeding six months preceding the date of test. 

So, we are of the considered view that the Ops had not taken any action on the application Ex.C7 of the complainant and even thereafter, send the bill for an amount of Rs.27,432/-, so, there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops in rendering services to the complainant. 

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to overhaul the account of complainant and adjust all the paid bills according to the average of meter-reading of succeeding six months from the date of disputed bill Ex.C1 i.e.  27.05.2013 and further to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.15.09.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.