Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/166/2014

Daya Wati W/o Hari Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Kumar

10 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                             Complaint No. 166 of 2014.

                                                                                             Date of institution: 28.3.2014

                                                                                             Date of decision: 10.11.2015.

Daya Wati wife of Sh. Hari Ram resident of Mohan Nagar, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Executive Engineer (OP) Division, UHBVN, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban, UHBVN, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                   …opposite parties. .

 

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

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

 

Present:  Sh. Naveen Kumar, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

                Sh. Zile Singh, Advocate, counsel for OPs.         

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Smt. Daya Wati 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 quash the bill No.1103 dated 26.11.2013 and to send fresh bill as per actual consumption and further to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment alongwith Rs. 3000/- 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. Y32 JU191927L and paying the bills regularly as issued by the OPs and there is nothing outstanding against her in any manner in respect of the electricity consumption charges. The complainant is a marginal electricity consumer as her electricity consumption is very low and has not received bill of more than Rs. 1000/- prior to the disputed bill. The complainant has received a bill No. 1103 dated 26.11.2013 wherein the OPs have shown exorbitantly high bill amounting to Rs. 5835/-. The said bill sent by the OPs is absolutely illegal and the same is not binding upon the complainant because the OPs have shown the consumed units as 891 whereas the complainant has not consumed the electricity to such an extent. The complainant moved an application on 8.1.2014 to the OPs for checking the meter reading but the OPs had not taken any action on the said application. After receiving the aforesaid bill, the complainant contacted the officials of OPs and requested them to correct the said bill as the same is not as per actual consumption but they refused to correct the said bill as per actual consumption. The act and conduct of the OPs are guilty of deficient and negligent services to the complainant consumer and they are involved in unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint..

3                      Upon notice OPs appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi, concealment of facts and on merit it has been submitted that consumption bill is always issued on the basis of actual consumption of electricity which is calculated on the basis of reading in electric meter and the OPs are no one to issue the bill when the reading of the meter is not running. In the present case also, the bill has been issued on the basis of actual consumption. The complainant has not paid the amount of bill in question till now. Apart from this, the complainant has also not paid the amount of next two bills of January 2014 and March 2014. Thus, a huge amount is outstanding against the complainant. Copy of ledger of account is also enclosed with the reply. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as bill dated 26.11.2013 as Annexure C-1 and Application dated 8.1.2014 for checking of meter reading as Annexure C-2 and closed her evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Munish Sharma, SDO, (OP) Sub Urban UHBVNL Jagadhri as Annexure RW/A and document such as copy of ledger of account No. JU19/1927 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.                     It is not disputed that complainant was having domestic electricity connection bearing account No. Y32 JU191927L at her premises. It is also not disputed that bill bearing No. 1103 dated 26.11.2013 (Annexure C-1) was issued by OPs in which unit consumed for two months period has been shown as 891 and a sum of Rs. 5835/- was imposed upon the complainant. The only plea of the counsel for the complainant is that the excessive consumption has been shown in this bill illegally and an application dated 8.1.2014 (Annexure C-2) was moved to the OP No. 2 regarding checking of meter reading.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs hotly argued that bill bearing No. 1103 dated 26.11.2013 in which an amount of Rs. 5835/- was imposed for 891 units consumed for two months, has been rightly issued to the complainant as per actual consumption and there is nothing wrong and draw our attention towards account statement Annexure R-1.

9.                     From the perusal of Annexure R-1, it is evident that the impugned bill has been sent by the OPs on actual consumption to the complainant and complainant has totally failed to produce any documentary evidence or any lab report from which we can presume that electric meter of the complainant was defective and excessive meter reading was due to jumping of meter digit. On one side, the complainant has mentioned in her complaint that she has moved an application on 8.1.2014 to the OPs for checking of meter reading but on the other hand, complainant’s counsel totally failed to summon the fate of the checking of meter reading as well as action taken on the application. Even, the complainant has not filed any application before this Forum to seek the direction to the OPs for filing fate of the checking of meter reading and application. Merely showing excessive reading for a period of two months vide bill No. 1103 dated 26.11.2013 does not mean that the meter reading of the complainant is illegal. Even the complainant has not tried to get the defective meter changed which is still working at the site excessive reading for a particular period shown in the impugned bill. It may be due to some other reasons best known to the complainant.

10                    In view of the above noted circumstances, we are of the considered view that in the absence of any documentary proof, we are unable to hold that the meter reading of 891 units consumed as shown in Bill No. 1103 dated 26.11.20134 was excessive and illegal and as such no deficiency in service is proved on the part of OPs. Hence, 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.10.11.2015.

           

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.