Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/246/2013

Balwinder Kaur W/o Massa Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sakshi Sharma

29 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 246 of 20103

                                                                                    Date of institution: 21.03.2013

                                                                                    Date of decision: 29.03.2016

Balwinder Kaur aged about 62 years w/o Sh. Massa Singh resident of H. No. 150 New Hamida Colony, Yamuna Nagar Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                   …Complainant.

 

                                    Versus

 

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Chairman, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.
2. S.D.O. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Division-1, Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                                                                                    ..Respondents. .  

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Smt. Sakshi Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Zile Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents.   

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Smt. Balwinder Kaur 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 possessed a plot at village Raipur, District Yamuna Nagar which was purchased by the complainant in the year 2006 from Sh. Gagan Kumar Dhamija son of Sh. Harish Chand Dhamija and on the aforesaid plot the complainant was enjoying the electricity services offered by the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs)  vide meter account No. Y41/YY17/5985P and as such there exists a relationship of consumer and supplier between the complainant and the OPs. In the month of June 2012, all of a sudden the meter jumped the reading by 3010 units and due to the defect in the meter, the complaint of defective meter was registered with the OP No.2. It has been further stated that meter in question has a load of 0.5 KW only and the complainant is using only one bulb in one of the room built in the aforesaid plot. It has been further stated that in the month of May 2012, the total consumed reading was shown as 3203 units since the installation of meter abut 2 years ago. In the month of August 2012, due to the defect, the meter caught fire and got burnt. The reading of 1042 units was recorded with the remarks B/fix but in fact at that time the meter was showing no reading due to burning and the reading of 1042 units was mentioned by the meter reader in his own. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs again and again regarding the defective meter, upon which the OPs installed a new electricity meter in the complainant’s premises and acknowledged the defect in the meter reading. Further, they assured the complainant that the complainant will be charged for the month of May to August on the basis of average of the units consumed in three preceding bills and thus the electricity bill will be rectified soon. But the earlier abnormal reading i.e. 3010 units + 1042 units = 4052 units in the span of four months ( May to August) was not rectified by the OPs inspite of so many requests made by the complainant. It has been further stated that the previous consumption pattern of the said meter before June 2012, was 172 units for October 2011, 71 units for December 2011, 50 units for February 2012 and 121 units for April 2012.  Even after the installation of new meter in August 2012, the reading of the new meter had been as 218 +200 units for October 2012 and 180 units for December 2012. Therefore, it is very much clear that reading of June 2012 i.e. 3010 unit and reading of August 2012 i.e. 1042 units are abnormal reading due to some defect in the meter because of which it also got burnt later on. The complainant was left with no other remedy so she was forced to send a legal notice dated 20.11.2012 to OP No.2 but no reply was sent rather the electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected on 24.2.2013. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objection such as complaint is not maintainable, no deficiency in service, no locus standi, no cause of action, complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merit it has been submitted that complainant defaulted in payment of electricity consumption bills as a result of which amount accumulated and a sum of Rs. 27649/- is outstanding against the connection of the complainant till April, 2013. It has been further stated that meter of the complainant was recording reading and OP No.2 was sending the electricity consumption bills as per reading/consumption to the complainant. In June 2012, when the meter reader visited the premises of the complainant for taking reading, the premises of the complainant was found locked. In August 2012, meter reader visited the premises of the complainant and noted reading of the meter as  6213 as new and old reading as  3203 and thus units were consumed as 3010 units. In this way the meter recorded the reading correctly. No application was ever given by the complainant regarding jumping of meter. Further, it has been mentioned that due to the mishandling of the meter by the complainant, the meter burnt and new meter was installed at the reading of 1 unit. Thereafter, the meter reader continued to take reading of the meter of complainant and electricity consumption bills were regularly sent by the OP No.2 to the complainant, but the complainant did not deposit the bills, as a result of which the amount accumulated and a sum of Rs. 27649/- become due till 04/2013. Due to non payment of the due amount of Nigam, the electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected permanently vide PDCO No. 81/2244. Rest contents of the complaint were denied with the prayer for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, complainant’s counsel has tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as photo copy of bill dated 24.9.2012, dated 21.11.2012, 28.01.2013 as Annexure C-1 to C-3 which are in the name of Puran Chand son of Jeet Singh, Photo copy of legal notice as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of sale deed executed between the Gagan Kumar Dhamija and Smt. Balwinder Kaur as Annexure C-5, Photo copies of receipts of electricity bills as Annexure C-6, Photograph of house as Annexure C-7 & C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence photo copy of ledger 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 plea of the complainant is that in the month of June, 2012 all of a sudden meter jumped the reading by 3010 units and due to the defect in the meter, a complaint of the defective meter was registered with the OP No.2 and further in the month of May 2012 the total consumed reading was shown as 3203 units since the installation of the meter about 2 years ago. In the month of August 2012 due to the defect, the meter caught fire and got burnt, the reading of 1042 units was recorded but in fact at that time the meter was not showing any reading due to burning but the meter reader falsely recorded meter reading as 1042 units. The consumption pattern of the said meter remains between 100 to 200 units. So, the OPs be directed to rectify the bills regarding units 3010 units of June 2012 plus 1042 units for August 2012 i.e. total 4052 units on the basis of the average of the last 3 reading consisting of October 2011 to April, 2012.

8.                     On the other hand, contention of the Ops is that the meter of the complainant was recording reading correctly. In the month of June 2012, premises of the complainant was found locked, so, the meter reader could not record the reading but in August 2012, noted reading of the meter as 6213 as new and old reading as 3203 and thus units were consumed 3010. No application was ever given by the complainant regarding jumping of meter. However, it is admitted that meter of the complainant was burnt and new meter was installed at the reading of 1 unit and thereafter the meter reader continued to take reading of the meter and electricity consumption bills were regularly sent by the OPs to the complainant but the complainant did not deposit the bills, as a result of which the amount accumulated a sum of Rs. 27659/- due till 4/2013 against the complainant. As the complainant failed to make the payment, so, the electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected permanently vide PDCO No. 81/2244. Lastly prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.            

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that the electric connection bearing account No. Y41/YY17/5985P stands in the name of Puran Chand son of Sh. Jeet Singh which is evident from Electricity Bills Annexure C-1 to C-3. Besides this, Smt. Balwinder Kaur wife of Sh. Massa Singh has tendered a sale deed dated 22.06.2006 (Annexure C-5) to prove that she is a consumer of OPs whereas from the perusal of sale deed it is evident that she has purchased the house from Sh. Gagan Kumar Dhamija son of Sh. Hari Chand Dhamija resident of 61A, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar. From the perusal of aforesaid documents placed on the file by the complainant it nowhere appears that she has purchased the house from Sh. Puran Chand who is a consumer as per electricity connection referred above. Even the complainant has not disclosed in her complaint that in what capacity she is using the electricity connection stands in the name of Puran Chand. Furthermore, the electricity connection in question has been disconnected permanently vide PDCO No.81/2244 Thus, the complaint of the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and the relevant para of consumer Protection Act is described as under:

Section 2(I)(d):-

                        (i)         buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid any partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

                        (ii)        [ hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [ but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]

                        [ Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, “ commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment]”            

10.                   In view of this, we are of the considered view that the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) (ii) of the Act and as such the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.

11.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed as not maintainable. It will, however, be open to the complainant to seek remedy before the appropriate Court in accordance with the provisions of law. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. 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: 29.03.2016

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                      (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                        MEMBER