Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/210/2012

Ashok Kumar S/o Lachhman Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN lTD. - Opp.Party(s)

N.S.Saini

20 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 210 of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 29.02.2012

                                                                                    Date of decision: 20.12.2016.

 

Ashok Kumar aged about 35 years son of Shri Lachhman Dass, resident of Village Khurdi, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                          …Complainant.

 

                                    Versus

1. The S.D.O. Op. Sub Division No.1, U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Executive Engineer (OP) Division, U.H.B.V.N, Ltd.  Yamuna Nagar District Yamuna Nagar.
3. The Chairman, U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                                   ...Respondents 

 

BEFORE          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG,  PRESIDENT,

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Niranjan Singh Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant. 

               Sh. D.S.Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

           

ORDER

 

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

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No. YY20/2084P-J and paying the electricity bills regularly. The meter installed at the premises of the complainant was O.K. However, the meter in question once burnt and the same was replaced after fulfilling all the formalities. The Ops Nigam  installed the meter of the Nigam but did not show the same in their record and Ops Nigam continued to show the status of meter as M.B. After that, Ops Nigam had sent a memo No. 2762 dated 17.10.2011 in which they have debited an amount of Rs. 19959/- on the pretext of overhauling the account of the complainant by the Audit Party for the month of May, 2007 to February, 2009 which is totally wrong and illegal. The complainant never defaulted the payment of the electricity charges and the meter reader of the Nigam was noting the reading of the meter every month as per actual consumptions and the complainant was paying the electricity bills regularly. In the bill dated 13.12.2011, the Ops Nigam have shown an excessive amount and the same has been corrected by the Ops Nigam and bill of Rs. 6181 was prepared out of which complainant deposited Rs. 4000/- and balance amount of Rs. 2181/- was to be deposited by the complainant in the next bill but the Ops Nigam have now sent the bill dated 27.01.2012 for Rs. 23368/- which is totally wrong and illegal. No show cause notice was ever given or any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the complainant before overhauling the account of the complainant. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and lastly prayed for quashing the memo bearing No. 2762 dated 17.10.2011 and not to recover the amount of Rs. 19959/- mentioned in the disputed bill dated 29.01.2012 and further to pay compensation as well as 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; complainant has no locus standi or any cause of action; complainant has concealed the true and material facts. The true facts are that one domestic connection bearing No. YY-20/2084P-J was standing in the name of complainant. Previously, the meter of the complainant was defective and the bill was sent on average basis and was replaced in the month of May, 2007. At the time of replacement of the meter, reading of the meter was 200 units but the MCO was not entered in the computer and the computer prepared the bill on average basis from 01/2007 to 01/2012 , on the other hand, the meter reader recorded the actual meter reading by visiting the site but the same was inadvertently not entered in the computer, so, the bills were continuously sent on the average basis. When this fact came to the knowledge of the Ops Nigam then the Ops Nigam made necessary adjustment of the amount received from the complainant and after making necessary consumption, the bill for an amount of Rs. 19,959/- was sent to the complainant which is actual consumption made by the complainant. On merit, controverted the plea take in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of electricity bill bearing No. 4519 dated 26.11.2011 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of electricity bill bearing No. 4509 dated 29.01.2012 as annexure C-2, Photo copies of electricity bills as Annexure C-3 to C-8, Photo copy of memo bearing No. 2267 dated 17.10.2011 as Annexure C-9, Photo copies of electricity bills as Annexure C-10 to C-38 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence photo copy of half margin audit report as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of ledger as Annex. R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

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

7.                     From the perusal of the ledger Annexure R-2, it is duly evident that electricity bills were issued to the complainant on average basis firstly showing the units as 80 units bi-monthly since May, 2007 to November, 2007 and after that showing as 160 bimonthly from 01/2008 to 09/2011 and the account of the complainant was overhauled in the month of November, 2011 as per actual consumption by the Audit Party which is duly evident from the copy of ledger Annexure R-1 and after adjustment, an amount of Rs. 19,959/- has been charged from the complainant. The plea of the complainant that no show cause notice or any opportunity of hearing has ever been afforded to the complainant is not tenable as from the perusal of photo copy of memo bearing No. 2762 dated 17.10.2011 (Annexure C-9), it is duly evident that in this memo it has been clearly mentioned that if the complainant has any objection against account pointed out by the Audit Party, the complainant can attend the office within 2 days failing which amount of Rs. 19,959/- will be debited in the account of the complainant without any further notice. From the perusal of this memo, it is clear that complainant was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. It is not the case of the complainant that he visited the office of the Ops Nigam and filed any objection which were not entertained by the Ops Nigam. Even, the complainant has also not placed on file any copy of that application/objections filed with the Ops Nigam. Meaning thereby that complainant was not having any reason/justification to object the report of the Audit Party. Further, we have also perused the electricity bills Annexure C-3 to C-8 from which it is duly evident that electricity bills were issued to the complainant on average basis showing the units as 160 bi-monthly, so, we are of the considered view that he is not entitled to get any relief on this account.

10.                   Although, the account of the complainant has been overhauled by the OPs and a legal bill has been raised on the basis of actual consumption after adjustment of the units charged on average basis, even then, it is clear that Ops failed to issue the electricity bills on actual consumption basis for near about 56 months due to which the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and was burdened with accumulated huge amount at one time.

11.                   Hence, we are of the considered view that the act of the OPs constitutes a deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant is entitled for relief.

12.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Ops Nigam to charge the disputed amount of Rs. 19,959/- in equal three (3) bimonthly installments without any surcharge (if any) from the complainant with current bills and further the OPs Nigam is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses. However, Ops Nigam is at liberty to recover the amount of compensation as well as litigation expenses from the defaulting officials of the OPs Nigam. 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 in open court: 20.12.2016.

                                                                                                  (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

            (S.C.SHARMA)                                                            PRESIDENT

            MEMBER                                                                     D.C.D.R.F.Yamuna Nagar

                                                                                                   at Jagadhri.