Haryana

Karnal

CC/83/2018

Pataleshwar Mahadev Shiv Mandir - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sub Divisional Officer (OP) Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Om Parkash Kashyap

01 May 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 83 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt. 04.04.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 01.05.2019

 

Pataleshwar Mahadev Shiv Mandir, Gopi Gamri, Sector-4, District Karnal through its President Mr. Kanwar Bhan son of Shri Parwana Ram.

 

                                                                         …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

The Sub Divisional Officer (OP) Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Division L-12, Model Town, Karnal.

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……….President.      

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri O.P.Kashyap Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri B.P. Singh Advocate for opposite party.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that the complainant being President of Pataleshwar Mahadev Shiv Mandir, Gopi Gamri, Sector-4, District Karnal and doing agricultural work under cultivation Techniques of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants on the land of said Mandir and has also get training from Horticultural Training Institute Uchani, Karnal, Haryana vide Regn. WT/52/5-16/1963 dated 28.03.2016. In the month of April, 2016 the complainant had applied for new Electricity Connection with the OP on the basis of his aforesaid Horticulture Certificate, because the electricity rates under Horticulture are lowest from Domestic and Non-Domestic connections. The application form alongwith allied documents including horticulture certificate were duly inspected and verified by the competent officer of OP and thereafter the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.5420/- in the office of OP, vide receipt no.3545 dated 28.04.2016 and accordingly new electricity connection bearing account no.887079000 was sanctioned in favour of the complainant. The complainant was surprised to receive a bill from the office of OP in which more than Rs.1,00,000/- was demanded by the OP from the complainant and in the said bill the category of said electricity connection was mentioned as NDS. After receipt of the said bill, the complainant immediately approached to the office of OP for correction of said bill, then the officials of OP had admitted their fault and had given an assurance that afresh bill will be sent to the complainant within few days. Thereafter, the officials of OP had sent afresh bill no.887075505738, date of issue 03.08.2017 when the complainant inspected the said bill carefully, then came to know that this time again the OP has mentioned the connection as NDS and demanding Rs.30,,528/- in illegal and unlawful manner. After receipt of said bill the complainant again approached to the OP for correction of the said bill, then this time OP flatly refused to correct the bill and threats to deposit the bill within time, otherwise they would disconnect the electricity connection to the premises of the complainant. The bill of complainant is required to be corrected as Horticulture category. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the norms of OP the price for per unit for the Agriculture, Horticulture and fishing purpose is fixed as 0.10 and 0.08 paise per unit and the complainant applied the said connection under Horticulture category, but the OP illegally and unlawfully intends to change the nature of electricity connection into Domestic supply or Non-Domestic supply. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 14.09.2017 to the OP in this regard but it also did not yield any result. Thereafter, complainant moved an application on 24.01.2018 to the SDO for correction of the bill but till today no action has been taken by the OP. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi; cause of action and jurisdiction. On merits, it is denied by the OP that complainant applied for connection in the category of Horticulture. The complainant has applied for DS category connection, vide his application no.40915 dated 28.04.2016 for 6.00 KW load and he deposited Rs.5420/- as security for the said connection but due to some clerical mistake in the recorded of the OP the said connection was generated as NDS category and accordingly the bills were sent by making calculation of NDS category. On receipt of application dated 14.09.2017 from the complainant, the OP corrected the bill. The bill for an amount of Rs.94,401/- was sent to him and after correction and overhauling the account the bill was sent for Rs.22,214/-which is correct and as per the DS category of the complainant and complainant is liable to pay the same. It is pleaded that the complainant applied for the connection with the OP and deposited Rs.3520/- and account no.887079000 was issued to him. It is further pleaded that the bill sent to the complainant was on actual consumption of electricity units. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 15.11.2018.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Jaipal Meter Reader Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 23.04.2019.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant is that he had applied for an electricity connection with the OP on the category of Horticulture and deposited an amount of Rs.5420/- with the OP for the said connection. The OP issued a bill of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant in the category of NDS. After receipt of the said bill complainant approached the OP for correction of the bill. OP corrected the bill and issued afresh bill of Rs.30,528/- in the NDS category, which was also wrongly issued by the OP because the complainant has applied the connection in Horticulture category. As per norms of the OP the price for per unit for Agriculture, Horticulture and fishing purpose is fixed as 0.10 and 0.08 paise per unit.  The complainant requested the OP several time to correct the bill but OP did not correct the bill.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OP is that the complainant has applied for DS category connection, vide his application no.40915 dated 28.04.2016 for 6.00 KW.  Due to clerical mistake in the record of the OP the said connection was generated as NDS category. On receipt of the application dated 14.09.2017 from the complainant the OP corrected the bill and overhauling the account and the bill was sent for Rs.22,214/- the said bill sent to the complainant was on actual consumption of electricity units. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the OP.

8.             As per the application form Ex.OP3 the complainant had applied for the connection for worship place in domestic category. The self declaration Ex.OP4 also proved that the complainant had applied for the said connection in domestic category and not a Horticulture/Agriculture category. Thus, the OP initially due to some clerical mistake said connection was generated as NDS category and the bills were sent by making calculation of NDS category, which were rectified lateron by the OP and bill for domestic connection was sent to the complainant and complainant is bound to pay the domestic bill as he had applied for the domestic connection. Thus, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

9.             Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we do not find any merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:01.05.2019                                                                       

                                                                      President,

                                                              District Consumer Disputes

                                                               Redressal Forum, Karnal.      

 

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                           Member