Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/121/2013

Balvinder Kaur W/o Bhagwan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vikramaditya Arya

14 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                           Complaint No. 121 of 2013.

                                                                                           Date of institution:18.02.2013

                                                                                           Date of decision:14.03.2016.

Balvinder Kaur widow of Shri Bhagwan Singh, resident of House No. 3/5, Chitta Mandir Chowk, Yamuna Nagar. .                                                                                                                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.
2. The Sub Divisional Officer, ‘OP’ Sub Division, UHBVN, Opposite Guru Nanak Khalsa College, Yamunanagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  …Respondents.

 

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

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

 

Present:  Sh. Vikramaditya Arya, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Sh. R.K.Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for respondents.            

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Balvinder Kaur has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to set aside the bill No. 4421 dated 8.9.2012 wherein the new meter reading has been shown as 5903 against the existing reading of  5847 and also to correct the subsequent bills as per actual reading for account bearing No. YT-22-4356 and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No. YT-22-4356 which is standing in the name of her husband Bhagwan Singh from the last 20 years who has since died and the complainant is the beneficiary of the said electricity connection and using the same. The complainant is paying all the bills regularly and nothing is due against her. Initially, the load of the electricity connection was 1 KW and the complainant was paying the bills as per applied load. In the month of February 2012, the complainant received a bill No. 4421 dated 8.9.2012 wherein the new meter reading was shown as 5903 whereas the meter was showing as 5847 reading, so, the complainant went to the office of Ops and lodged a complaint where upon J.E. went to the spot and checked the reading and found the reading as 5847 units. At that time, the complainant was also surprised to see that the bills were being issued to her on the basis of 2 KW load whereas the applied load was only 1 KW and the complainant is only widow lady leaving in her own house. It was also found that meter rent was being charged at the rate of Rs.40/- per month against Rs. 18/- per month. The OPs were also told about all these facts and requested to overhaul her account and refund the excess amount but nothing was done. The OPs are issuing subsequent bills on the basis of 2 KW and showing wrong meter reading as well as wrong meter rent. So, the act and conduct of the OPs is wrong and illegal and constitute deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Lastly prayed that to set aside all the bills starting from bill No. 4421 dated 8.9.2012 to up to date by calculating the bills on the basis of 1 KW load and charging meter rent at the rate of Rs. 18/- per month and further as per existing meter reading. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as no locus standi, no cause of action, complainant has concealed the true and material facts, no deficiency in service and on merit it has been mentioned that the electricity connection bearing account No. YT-224356 was released in the name of consumer, the demand bill was sent to the consumer as per meter reading and actual consumption of the electricity, whereas on various occasions, the premises of the consumer was found locked. However, the consumer is very liable to pay and the amount deposited by the consumer was very much legal and the same is not refundable as sought by the complainant and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency or negligence in service on the part of OPs.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of electricity bill bearing No. 4421 dated 08.09.2012 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of application alongwith postal receipt dated 23.5.2011 as  Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Sudesh Kumar, SDO (OP) UHBVNL Yamuna Nagar as Annexure RW/A and documents such as photo copy of account statement 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 carefully and minutely.

7.                     The only plea of the complainant is that OPs issued a bill bearing No. 4421 dated 08.09.2012 showing the meter reading as 5903 whereas the meter was showing reading as 5847 which is wrong, in correct and liable to be set aside and the OPs are charging rent of the meter at the rate of 40/- per month against Rs. 18/- per month. Even the OPs are sending the electricity bills on the basis of 2 KW load whereas the applied load was only 1 KW of the electricity connection of the complainant. Hence, the OPs are negligent and deficient in service and the complaint is liable to be accepted.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs hotly argued that the present complaint has been filed just to harass and humiliate the OPs whereas there is no truth in the allegations leveled in the complaint. The demanded bill was sent to the consumer as per meter reading and actual consumption of the electricity. However, on various occasions the premises of the consumer was found locked. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     We have perused the electricity bill No. 4421 dated 8.9.2012 (Annexure C-1) carefully and minutely and after going through this bill it is evident that consumptions of the electricity meter of the complainant ranges between  109 units to 192 units for the last one year and the bill in question has also been issued for 150 units which was consumed by the complainant for the period from 22.2.2012 to 22.8.2012. Learned counsel for the complainant totally failed to point out any discrepancies in the bill in question and further complainant has not filed any cogent evidence to prove her version i.e. previously the electricity connection of the complainant was having 1 KW load whereas in the bill in question has been shown as 2 KW. Moreover, the complainant also failed to file any evidence to prove that OPs have charged wrongly Rs. 40/- instead of Rs. 18/- as meter rent charges. To prove the case complainant has only filed bill bearing No. 4421 dated 8.9.2012 and only one application dated 23.5.2011. Even the complainant has not filed any checking report done by the J.E. mentioning that the units were 5847 instead of 5903 at the spot as alleged by the complainant in her complaint. Moreover, if any, reading as alleged in the complaint has been shown in excess by the OPs then it might have been reduced in the next bill issued by the OPs to the complainant but as the complainant has not filed subsequent bills. As such, the complainant has failed to prove her case.

10.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint 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.14.03.2016.

           

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.