Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/907/2013

Parveen Goel S/o Tirlok Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Division officer,UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Aggarwal

03 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 907 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 16.12.2013

                                                                                    Date of decision: 03.06.2016.

Parveen Goel aged about 42 years son of Sh. Tirlok Goel, resident of House No. 1197, Sector-17, Urban Estate Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                …Complainant.

 

                                    Versus

1. Sub Divisional Officer, (OP) Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Urban Sub Division, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Executive Engineer, (OP) Sub Division Yamuna Nagar, Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
3. Managing Director, Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                                                                                             ...Respondent.  

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Dharamvir Singh, Advocate, for respondents.   

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Parveen Goel has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.   

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No. JU-21/6294W-B and paying all the electricity bills regularly. In the month of August 2011, the complainant received a demand bill for a sum of Rs. 32100/- and after receiving the same he visited the office of respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as OP No.1) and requested them to rectify the said bill by making correction therein and the officials of the OPs, assured the complainant that next bill will be given after making necessary correction therein. The complainant received a bill for a sum of Rs. 45757/- including bill of previous consumption amounting to Rs. 32100/-. The complainant visited to the office of OP No.1 on the receipt of bill and requested them to rectify the disputed bill but the official of OP No.1 suggested the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 15000/- and they will change the electricity meter and next demand of bill will be calculated on the actual meter reading. In the month of October, 2012 the electric meter has been changed and complainant was compelled to pay Rs. 10,000/- on the next demand bill which has been paid by the complainant in December 2012 under protest. The complainant received a demand bill in the month of August 2013 for a sum of Rs. 63956/- despite above payment of electric bill and he again requested the OP No.1 to correct bill and receive the amount on the basis of actual consumption but the intention of the OP No.1 became malafide and raised a demand of Rs. 40,000/- and assured the complainant to settle the matter completely. The electric bill of the complainant has not been corrected/ rectified by the official of the OP No.1 despite many visits and requests and prayed for directing the OPs not to recover the illegal amount as mentioned in the bill and to receive the electric bill on his actual consumption as well as to pay compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.      

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; no cause of action has arisen; no locus standi and on merit it has been admitted that the electricity meter of the complainant was defective and the electric bill was sent to him on average basis and after that his electric meter was replaced with new one in the month of November 2012. Thus the account of the complainant shall be overhauled as per consumption of new meter and deposited amount, if any, will be adjusted at the time of overhauling the account of complainant and if any amount found outstanding towards the complainant, the same shall be recovered from him and the complainant will be bound to make the payment of same. However, still an amount of Rs 66818/- is outstanding against the complainant.

4.                     To prove the case, complainant’s counsel has tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of electricity bills as Annexure C-1 to C-14 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.    

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Munish Sharma, SDO (OP) UHBVNL Sub Division Jagadhri as Annexure RW/A and document such as Photo copy of ledger of account as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

7.                     The only grievance of the complainant is that he received electric bill of amounting to Rs. 32100/- in the month of August 2011 and later on OPs issued a bill of Rs. 45757/- by adding previous amount of Rs. 32100/- whereas the electric meter of the complainant was defective since the year 2010 and his electric meter was replaced with new one in the month of October 2012  but the OPs in their written statement at para No.5 has admitted that the electric meter was replaced with new one in the month of November 2012.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs argued at length that the electric meter of the complainant was changed in the month of November 2012 and they are ready to overhaul the account of the complainant as per electric consumption of new electric meter. After overhauling the account of electric meter of the complainant on the basis of consumption of new electric meter, if any, amount becomes due to the complainant the same shall be recovered from him and the amount already paid by the complainant for this account shall be adjusted in his future bills.  

9.                     During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the OPs admitted that the defective electric meter of the complainant was replaced with new one in the month of November, 2012 but till today the electric account of the complainant has not been overhauled by the OPs. We have also perused the account statement filed by the OP (Annexure R-1) from which it is evident that the meter of the complainant remained defective for the period from September 2010 to September 2012 and in the column of ledger the consumption of old reading has been shown as 80 whereas in the column of new reading has been shown as defective instead of actual consumption of reading of electric meter from the month of September 2010, but electricity bill has been raised for 600 units  from September 2010 to January 2011 and after that the electricity bills have also been raised for 1200 unit, on the fixed basis till July, 2012 and thereafter 600 units in the month of September 2012.

10.                   Learned counsel for the Op has admitted during the course of arguments that account of the complainant has not been overhauled till today after the MCO in the month of November,2012 for the period in which the meter of the complainant remained out of working. Hence, we have no option except to partly allow the complaint of complainant.

 11.                  Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs to overhaul the account of the complainant for the previous period from September, 2010 to October 2012 on the basis of reading of new electric meter of 12 months from November 2012 to October,2013  i.e. the date when MCO became effective.  After overhauling the account of the complainant for the period referred above, the amount deposited by the complainant be adjusted and after adjustment of amount paid by the complainant, if any amount becomes due towards the complainant, the same be recovered from him as per rules of the Nigam and if any amount becomes due towards the OPs the same be refunded to the complainant. Further the OPs are also directed to charge the actual amount of new electric meter consumption charges from the complainant. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced: 03.06.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                    MEMBER