Haryana

Karnal

CC/149/2021

Jagdish - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVNL Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Surinder Singh

20 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No.149 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.10.03.2021

                                                        Date of Decision: 20.08.2024

 

Jagdish son of Shri Jai Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Bijna, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal, aged about 52 years.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Sub Divisional Officer (OP), UHBVNL Limited, Sub Division, Jundla, Karnal.

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Mrs.Sarvjeet Kaur…..……Member

          

 Argued by: None for the complainant.

               Shri Vikas Yadav, counsel for the opposite party.

 

                 (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

               

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is consumer of OP having electricity connection bearing No.JD25-2063-K which is a domestic connection and the complainant since the day of installation of said connection has been regularly paying the electricity charges to the OP. Electricity consumption of premises of complainant is very low as such, the OP has been sending the bill as per minimum consumption charges uptill July 2020 which were paid by the complainant. In the month of May, 2020, the OP send bill for 6060 units by alleging that same is AVHL, hence, the complainant visited the office of OP and requested to rectify the mistake and OP assured that the said mistake will be rectified in next bill. In the month of July, 2020, the OP has sent bill for 175 units shown as actual consumption charges but the previous units were not rectified. Thereafter, OP send bill dated 19.09.2020 for an amount of Rs.1,28,772/- showing 10099 units which was totally incorrect as reading shown by the meter has jumped or meter became defective. The complainant again approached the OP for testing of meter and rectification of mistakes in the bills but to no effect and OP started sending the bill as per actual consumption which is in between 250 to 400 units but has not rectified the previous mistakes in the bill. Two bills for the month July, 2020 and September 2020 have been wrongly issued to the complainant and same are needed to be rectified. The OP has send the said bills illegally and thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence, the present complaint. 

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi; maintability; concealment of true and material facts; estoppel; jurisdiction, etc.  On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant was got blocked the reading of his meter and in May, 2020, when the OP came to know about the said fact, the meter was replaced vide MCO No.93/53 dated 18.03.2020 that 5820 units were lying pending which were blocked by the complainant, thereafter, the bills in question were rightly sent. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copies of bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C7, copies of receipts of payment Ex.C8 and Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 11.11.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rohit Yadav, Ex.DW1/A, copy of details of account Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 18.10.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             It is pertinent to mention here that neither today nor on the adjourned date, none has put in appearance on behalf of complainant. Further on 27.03.2024 and 21.05.2024, also case was adjourned on the request of proxy counsel on behalf of complainant. 7.            We have heard the learned counsel of the OP and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Complainant in his complaint has submitted that he was paying bills regularly on average basis. The complainant was surprised when the disputed bills were received. Despite repeated requests, the OP did not rectify the bills in question which are illegal, null and void. In this way, there is clear deficiency in service on the part of OP and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant got blocked the reading of the meter and when this fact came to the knowledge of the OP, the meter was replaced thereafter the bills were sent to the complainant after calculating the reading. Thus, the bills in question were rightly issued to the complainant as per actual consumption and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           The complainant in his pleading has alleged that the bills in question were issued illegally. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but the complainant has miserably failed to prove his version by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The complainant placed on file copies of bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C7. From the said bills it has also not proved that the complainant was paying the bills regularly. On the other hand, the OP has alleged that the complainant got his meter blocked and due to that actual reading could not be find out and after replacing the meter, the bills were sent to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption at the premises of complainant. To prove its version, the OP has placed on file copy of account details Ex.D1, from which it is clearly established that the bills in question were issued to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption. Moreover, the act and conduct of the complainant is very well proved from the file that on 19.03.2021, this Commission has restrained the OP not to disconnect the electricity connection of the premises of the complainant and case was fixed for filing written version. The written version was filed on 28.04.2021 and thereafter, the case was repeatedly adjourned for evidence of complainant. The complainant has availed several effective opportunities for leading his evidence including two last opportunities but failed to conclude his evidence, thus, on observing the conduct of the complainant, this Commission has vacated the stay granted vide order dated 19.03.2021. Now from the last three dates, neither his main counsel nor the complainant appeared, rather on two dates, proxy counsels were sent and on previous date, none has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. It seems that the complainant is no more interested in pursuing the present complaint as the bills were rightly issued by the OP.

12.           Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

 

Announced

Dated: 20.08.2024                                                                   

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

                 (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                        Member