Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/212/2014

Saroj Sharma D/o Sant Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

The S.D.O. Op. Sub Division ,UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Dhall

10 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

                                                                  Complaint No.212 of 2014.

                                                                   Date of Institution:5.5.2014.

                                                                   Date of Decision:10.10.2017

Saroj Sharma (48) D/o Sh.Sant Ram, resident of House bearing No.B-4/1603, Tilak Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, tehsil jagadhri, Distt.Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                      ..Complainant.

           Versus

1.       The SDO op Sub Division, UHBVNL, ITI, Yamuna Nagar, tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

2.       Executive Engineer, (op) Division, UHBVNL, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                        ..Respondents.

 

Before:        SH. SATPAL……………….    PRESIDENT.

                   SH. S.C. SHARMA  ……….…MEMBER.

                   SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND…MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh.Vikash Dhall, Advocate for complainant.

               Sh.Dharamvir Singh, Advocate, for OPs.

 

ORDER:    (SATPAL, PRESIDENT).

1.                The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter respondents shall be referred as OPs). 

2.                Brief facts of the complaint as alleged by the complainant are that the complainant is consumer of the Ops having electric connection No.Y46YF051707K and has been paying the actual consumption charges regularly.   In the month of January-2013 the meter of the complainant became defective and the OP No.1 continued to send the bills on average basis and the said meter was got replaced by the complainant after paying the cost of the meter to the OP No.1 in the month of February-2013 but the Op No.1 continued to show the status of the meter defective up to April-2013 and the consumption was shown  between 200 to 300 units.  The meter of the complainant was in OK condition and the complainant never defaulted in payment of electricity charges and the meter reader of the Nigam has been noting the reading of meter every month.  In the month of November-2013, the officials of the Ops checked the premises of the complainant and the status of the meter and the load of the complainant was found OK.  The OP No.1 had sent the wrong bill dated 28.2.2014 for Rs.14,367/- payable up to 18.3.2014, on which the complainant requested the Op No.1 to quash the illegal amount of Rs.14,367/- and to receive the actual consumption bill but of no use. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for quashing the bill dated 15.2.2014 and to receive the current bill and further not to recover the balance illegal disputed bill and not to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant and to refund Rs.9,000/- deposited by the complainant along with interest till realization and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as cost of proceedings. 

2.                Upon notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has no cause of action against the Ops; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint; the complaint of the complainant is false and frivolous; the complainant has not come to this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands.  On merits admitted that the complainant is consumer of the Ops having electric connection No.Y46YF051707K.  It is admitted that the meter of the complainant was defective and due to this reason the bill was sent to the complainant on minimum/average basis during the period from 12/12 to 4/2013.  Thereafter, the electricity meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO NO.40/6943, dated 4.3.2013 affected on 29.3.2013. The meter reading of new meter in the month of June-2013 was recorded as 780 units, August-2013-1123 units, October-2013-1087 units of three bill cycles respectively.  The total units for the aforesaid period is 780+1123+1087=2990 units/3=997 units as such the average consumption of the complainant is 997 units per bill cycle.  So, on the basis of this consumption, the account of the complainant was overhauled and after deducting the already charged units i.e. 228+0+304 units the bill of consumption charges i.e. Rs.14,366.99 was sent to the complainant as per actual consumption and meter reading of the complainant.  The complainant is liable to pay the same being consumption charges.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for dismissal of compliant with costs. 

4.           To prove the case the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as annexure CW/A, documents such as copy of bill dated 15.3.2014 as annexure C.1, copy of receipt of Rs.9000/- as annexure C.2, copy of checking report as annexure C.3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                The counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sukhwinder Singh, SDO as annexure R/A and document such as copy of half margin as annexure R.1and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. 

7.                After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, this fact is admitted that the complainant is consumer of the Ops having electric connection No.Y46YF051707K and in the month of January-2013 the meter of the complainant become defective which was replaced vide MCO No.4.3.2013 affected on 29.3.2013.  The plea taken by the Ops is that on the basis of average consumption of electricity as reflected in new meter i.e.780+1123+1087=2990/3=997 units, the account of the complainant was overhauled after deducting the already charged units i.e.228+0+304 units.  The Ops have sent the bill of consumption charges i.e. Rs.14,366.99ps to the complainant by taking the 997 units as average per bill cycle.  This plea of the Ops has nowhere been controverted by the complainant.  It seems that the overhauling made by the Ops is correct and justified.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

8.                Resultantly, we find no merits in the complaint of the complainant and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  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 in open court: 10.10.2017.

                                                                             (SATPAL)

                                                                             PRESIDENT

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                         (S.C. SHARMA)

MEMBER.                                                         MEMBER