Haryana

StateCommission

A/360/2018

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SEEMA JAIN AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL KIUMAR

24 Aug 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                First Appeal No.           :         360 of 2018

                                                Date of Institution        :         21.03.2018

                                                Date of Decision                   :         24.08.2018

 

1. UHBVNL Ltd. through its SDO old City Sonepat at Railway Road, Indira Colony, Sonepat.
2. XEN UHBVNL Ltd., City Sonepat having its office at Fazlipur, Sonepat.

 

          …… Appellant.

 

Versus

 

1. Seema Jain       
2. Ritu Jain, both daughters of Sh. Prem Kumar Jain, Resident of Bara Halwai Hatta, Old City, Sonepat.

 

……. Respondents.

 

CORAM:             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Presiding Member.

 

Present:              Mr. Sikander Bakshi, counsel for the appellants.

                             Mr. Sushil Jain, counsel for respondents.

 

O R D E R

 

DIWAN SINGH CHAUHAN, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                             The present appeal has been decided by me in view of the order passed by Hon’ble President of the State Commission conveyed to me vide Endst. No. 195 dated 25.01.2018 whereby I have been authorized to decide the cases singly in Additional Bench-II.

                             This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by complainant against the OPs was allowed and following directions were given to the Opposite parties:-                         

“Accordingly, it is directed to the respondents to overhaul the account of the complainants from 7/10 to 5/12 after considering three bimonthly subsequent bills for the period 7/12, 9/12 and 11/12 as per sales circular of the Nigam. The respondents are directed to exclde the surcharge and to issue the revised bill to the complainants. It is also directed to the respondents that if any excess amount is found paid by the complainants, the same be adjusted in the future bills of the complainants. The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainants to the tune of Rs.2000/- only (Rs. Two thousand only in total), for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses and this amount of compensation is also directed to be adjusted in the future bills of the complainants. The respondents are further directed to do the needful in the matter of the complainants within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the law will take its own recourse”.  

                             The brief facts of the case are that the complainants are using electricity connection no. YD-668 in the name of their father. In the year 2010, the electricity meter had got burnt and the respondents were duly informed. A new meter was installed by the respondents. Respondents have issued wrong bill and they have demanded Rs.1,35,000/- from the complainants. The respondents firstly have issued a wrong and illegal bill on the basis of wrong calculations in the year 2012. However, they admit that the average consumption of electricity was to be taken on the basis of three bills after the installation of new meter, but the auditor has taken the average consumption of six bills. The respondents have not deducted the payment made by the complainants from the date of burnt meter till installation of new meter and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

                             Upon notice respondents filed written statement taking preliminary objections that in the year 2010, the electricity meter had got burnt. The complainants are not paying the electricity bills regularly and huge amount of is due towards the complainants. In the month of May 2017 the respondents have issued the bill of Rs.1,34,017/-. In the month of 12/2013, an amount of Rs.41239/- was due towards the complainants and since 12/2013 to 7/2017, the complainants are making the part payment against their original consumption bills. The respondents have issued the corect and legal bills and the complainant are liable to pay the same. Since there is no deficiency on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                             Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.

                             On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and granted relief as noticed in the opening para of this order.

                             Aggrieved with the impugned order, appellants-UHBVN have come up in appeal.  Hence this appeal.

                             I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file thoroughly.

                             The counsel for the appellants contended that the District Forum has failed to take into consideration that complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the complainants/respondents are not paying the electricity bills regularly and huge amount is still due towards the complainants. In the month of May, 2017 the appellants-UHBVN have issued bill of Rs.1,34,017/- on account of complainants as in the month of December, 2013 an amount of Rs.41,239/- was due towards the complainants/respondents and since December, 2013 to July, 2017 the complainants/respondents are making the part payment against their original consumption and due to non-making the payment the bills were continuously increasing since December, 2013 to till date.  They have further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed that appeal may be allowed and complaint filed by complainants be dismissed.

                             On the other hand, the respondents/complainants contended that they are using electricity connection no. YD-668 in the name of their father. In the year 2010, the electricity meter had got burnt and the respondents were duly informed. A new meter was installed by the respondents. Respondents have issued wrong bill and they have demanded Rs.1,35,000/- from the complainants. The respondents firstly have issued a wrong and illegal bill on the basis of wrong calculations in the year 2012. However, they admit that the average consumption of electricity was to be taken on the basis of three bills after the installation of new meter, but the auditor has taken the average consumption of six bills. The respondents have not deducted the payment made by the complainants from the date of burnt meter till installation of new meter. The District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal of the appellant.

                             I have considered the respective submission of the parties and have gone through the facts and circumstance of the case evidence adduced on record by both the parties and observations given by the District Forum as under:-

“Ex. R4 i.e. Audit observation prepared by the audit party. In this report, the account of the complainants was overhauled from 7/10 to 5/12. During this period, the meter of the complainants was not installed and the bill was issued on average basis after considering first three bimonthly bills i.e. 7/10, 9/10 and 11/10 as 600 units bimonthly and thereafter 1026 units bimonthly to 1220 units upto 5/12. The account of the complainants was overhauled after considering previous year consumption. But in this audit observation, the previous year consumption was not been mentioned. Moreover, the consumption was mentioned on very higher side i.e. 1636, 1500, 1520, 2052, 2400, 2196 units.  The perusal of the ledger of the complainant shows that after installation of fresh meter, first consumption comes to 594 units for 7/12, 615 units for 9/12 and 495 units for 11/12 and upto 3/14, the consumption of the complainants never exceeded 900 units and on lower side it was 102 units. In this way, the consumption of the complainants was very smooth. The audit party has mentioned the consumption on very higher side which is without any base and without mentioning the year of reading. Thus, the audit observation is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”

In my view the District Forum has rightly issued the directions to the appellants/opposite parties in the order dated 05.02.2018. Accordingly the present appeal is dismissed and order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the District Forum needs no interference. Hence the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.

The statutory amount of Rs.2,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced                                                                                 Diwan Singh Chauhan,

24.08.2018                                                                                       Presiding Member

                                                                                                    Addl. Bench-IInd  

D.K.