Haryana

Karnal

CC/414/2020

Pankaj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sanjeev Kamboj

01 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No.414 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.08.10.2020

                                                        Date of Decision: 01.02.2024

 

Pankaj Kumar son of Shri Iqbal Singh, resident of Village Pundrak, Tehsil and District Karnal, aged about 35 years, (Aadhar No.9921 0261 7502).

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

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

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Suman Singh…..……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Sanjiv Kamboj, counsel 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 has been regularly paying the electricity bills to the OP and no amount is outstanding against the complainant. To the utter surprise of the complainant, when he received bill dated 29.05.2020 for the period from 07.03.2020 to 07.05.2020 for an amount of Rs.43,910/-. In the said bill, an amount of Rs.43,381/- has been shown as sundry charges/allowances but the fact is that there is no previous balance or any kind of outstanding balance towards the complainant, thus, the said amount is illegal, null and void. The complainant contacted the OP and requested to rectify the said bill, but the OP refused to do so. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this 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 account of the complainant was checked and overhauled by the internal audit party on 10.02.2020 and the audit party found that sundry related to the account of the complainant was posted in the ledger many times but in actual there should be only single sundry and the benefit should be given single time but there were many sundries made by the official and excess benefit was given to the consumer. The details of which are given hereunder:-

Month	Amount	Sundry number
08/18	-221597	160/10
01/19	-255876	162/90
02/19	-313335	162/90
05/19	-255876	164/35
06/19	-3883	164/22
Total	-1048567

  

Detail of benefit which was actually required to be given:-

Month	Amount	Sundry No.
03/10	+530145	160/66
04/19	-255876	164/22

 

Hence, in this way, excess benefit of Rs.2,62,546/- has been given whereas the actual credit required to be given was to the tune of Rs.2,21,597/-, hence, an amount of Rs.40,949/- is chargeable from the complainant. The said amount has been transferred into the account of the complainant and the complainant is liable to pay the said amount. 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, copy of bill Ex.C1 and closed the evidence on 28.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Pardeep Kumar, CA Ex.OP1/A, copy of half margin report Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 05.06.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is consumer of electricity connection. The complainant has been regularly making the payment of the bill as demanded by the OP. The complainant was surprised when the disputed bill was received by him. Despite repeated requests, the OP did not rectify the bill in question which is 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.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the account of the complainant has been overhauled and it was found that excess benefit of Rs.2,62,546/- has been given whereas the actual credit required to be given to the complainant was to the tune of Rs.2,21,597/-, hence, an amount of Rs.40,949/- was chargeable from the complainant. Thus, the bill in question was rightly issued to the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

10.           The complainant has alleged that he has cleared all the electricity bills and nothing was due towards him. 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 has relied upon only disputed bill Ex.C1, and he has failed to place on record any receipt with regard to deposit of earlier bills with the OP, rather OP has placed on record half margin report Ex.OP1, which is reproduced as under:-

During the course of audit, it is pointed out that sundry made related to consumer account many times and posted in ledger but in actual there should prepare only single sundry and should give the benefit single time but there are many sundries made by the official and give the excess benefit to consumers. Details of sundries are as under:-

 

 

Month	Amount	Sundry No.
03/10	+530145	160/66
04/19	-255876	164/22

 

 

 

Detail of benefit which was actually required to be given:-

 

Month	Amount	Sundry number
08/18	-221597	160/10
01/19	-255876	162/90
02/19	-313335	162/90
05/19	-255876	164/35
06/19	-3883	164/22
Total	-1048567

 

11.           From the said half margin report, it has been clearly proved that excess benefit to the tune of Rs.40949/- was given to the complainant and same has been chargeable from the complainant, therefore, the OP is entitled to recover the same from the complainant.

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: 01.02.2024                                                                   

                                                                                     President,

District Consumer Disputes 

RedressalCommission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

    Member                         Member