Haryana

Karnal

CC/264/2021

Virender Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

G.S. Virk

02 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 264 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.07.06.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:02.02.2023

 

Virender Pal Singh son of Shri Inderjeet Singh, resident of village Mubarkabad, District Karnal, age 55 years.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Sub Divisional Officer(OP) UHBVN, Sub Division, Gharaunda, Karnal.

2.     XEN, UHBVN, Sector-12, District Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

                    Shri V.S. Malik, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant got installed electricity tubewell meter/connection no.ZA31/1003F at village Mubarkabad, tehsil Gharaunda District Karnal and give a bill of Rs.300/- per month as per Government policy. Since year 2019, the complainant is paying advance bill to the OPs. In the year 2019, the complainant deposited Rs.3431/- on 20.06.2019 as advance bill and again in the year 2020 the complainant deposited Rs.2857/- on 10.06.2020 as advance bill. When in the year 2021, complainant visited the office of OPs, then official of OPs told that Rs.3543/- is outstanding against the complainant. Infact, nothing is due against the complainant and complainant is paying advance bill as per demand of the OPs. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs several times to get corrected the bill but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and also threatened the complainant to disconnect his electricity connection if he fails to deposit the amount of alleged bill.  In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the bill in question is regarding the actual consumption of electricity and no excess amount has been credited in the account of the complainant. It is further pleaded that when the complainant deposited advance bill then his bill came in minus but thereafter same was increased with consumption. The amount shown towards the complainant is legal and as per the actual consumption. As and when complainant asked to deposit the said amount but he did not bother for same and filed this false complaint. 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.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill receipt of Rs.3649/- Ex.C2, copy of Aadhar card of complainant Ex.C3, copies  of bills dated 20.06.2019, 10.06.2020, 20.06.2019, 25.05.2021 Ex.C4 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 15.02.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Yuvraj Singh Rathore SDO Ex.OP1/A, copy of sundry details Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 14.09.2022 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 the complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant got installed electricity tubewell meter/connection at village Mubarkabad, tehsil Gharaunda District Karnal. Complainant deposited Rs.3431/- on 20.06.2019 and Rs.2857/- on 10.06.2020 as advance bills. In the year 2021, complainant visited the office of OPs, then official of OPs told that Rs.3543/- is outstanding against the complainant whereas nothing is due against the complainant and complainant is paying advance bill. The complainant requested the OPs several times to get corrected the bill but OPs did not do so and also threatened the complainant to disconnect his electricity connection and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the bill in question is regarding the actual consumption of electricity and no excess amount has been credited in the account of the complainant. When the complainant deposited advance bill then his bill came in minus but thereafter same was increased with consumption. The amount shown towards the complainant is legal and as per the actual consumption and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

10.               It is evident from the receipt Ex.C2, bill Ex.C4, receipt Ex.C5, Bill Ex.C6 and Ex.C7 and receipt Ex.C8, complainant has deposited all the electricity bills and nothing was/is due against the complainant.

11.           OPs have taken a plea that complainant made a request for extension of load and deposited extension fees, load was not extended and cost of the meter has been refunded. To prove its version, OPs have relied upon copy of sundry details Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2. But it has not been proved on the file that cost of the meter has been refunded to the complainant as there is no receipt or signature of complainant.

12.           Complainant has already deposited all the electricity bills. Disputed bill is of Rs.3543/- and said bill has already been cleared by the complainant. Thus, said bill has not been issued by the OPs as per correct reading and same is issued on the basis of presumption and assumption, which is not admissible in the eyes of law. Thus, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

13.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs not to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant on the basis of alleged bill. Complainant is also directed to pay all the subsequent bills as per consumption. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced
Dated: 02.02.2023

 

  President,       

District Consumer Disputes                          

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

                      (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)           

                          Member                           Member