Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/399/2014

Gurdial Singh S/o Mam Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sushil Kaushal

21 Jun 2017

ORDER

    BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 399 of 2014

                                                                                    Date of institution: 18.09.2014     

                                                                                    Date of decision: 21.06.2017

 

    Gurdial Singh, aged about 40 years, son of Shri Mam Raj, resident of village Barouli Majra, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

…Complainant.

 

                                    Versus

1. UHBVN Ltd. OP sub Division, Chhachhrauli, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar through its SDO.
2. UHBVN Yamuna Nagar, through its Executive Engineer, OP Division, Jagadhri/Yamuna Nagar.
3. UHBVN , Sector 6, Sakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                                               …Opp. Parties/Respondents.

 

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

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

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND……………… MEMBER

 

 

Present:           Shri Sushil Kaushal, Advocate for complainant.

           Shri Zile Singh, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)
 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs).

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that complainant is a resident of village of Barouli Majra, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar where an electricity connection bearing account No.Y33JH190942A2 is installed and the complainant is paying electricity bill regularly without any default. However, in the month of March, 2014, the complainant was astonished to receive a wrong, illegal and excessive bill dated 10.03.2014 for Rs.7452/- in which the units consumed by the complainant have wrongly been shown as 1253 and after receiving the above said wrong and illegal bill, the complainant approached to the OP No.1 and moved an application dated 31.03.2014  stating that the consumption of the complainant, for two months, comes between 80-107 and now through the disputed bill, the OPs have shown units 1253 consumed by the complainant and the complainant requested the OP N o.1 to correct the bill after getting the load and meter checked. The said application was marked to Ram Nath A.F.M. on 31.03.2014 , who further marked the said application to Shri Jai Chand Lineman and Shri Jai Chand Lineman checked the premises of the complainant and made its report that the seals are intact, meter jumped and the load of the complainant is three bulbs, three plugs and two ceiling fans and status of the meter has been shown O.K. and after the checking by the said Jai Chand, the complainant approached to the OP No.1 and requested to correct the bill as per actual consumption. Accordingly, the OP no.1 asked the complainant to deposit Rs.1,000/- and assured the complainant that the bill of the complainant will be corrected as per actual consumption and the complainant deposited Rs.1,000/- on dated 07.04.2014 vide receipt No.68 with the OP No.1. The complainant has again received another bill dated 11.05.2014 for Rs.7,430/- and the complainant again approached to the OP No.1 and requested him to correct the bill as per actual consumption but the OP No.1 stated that the case of the complainant has been put before higher officers and advised not to deposit the said bill till then. Thereafter, complainant again received a bill dated 08.07.2014  fro Rs.8014/- payable up to 25.07.2014 and the complainant  again approached to the OP No.1 for correcting the above said disputed bills as per actual consumption  but the OP No.1 prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as: - complaint is not maintainable, complainant has got no locus standi or any cause of action against the OPs. All the disputed bills were issued to the complainant as per actual consumption and he is liable to pay the same and on merit it is stated that the bill dated 03/2014 was sent to the complainant as per actual consumption which is genuine and he is liable to pay the same, but the complainant has deposited part payment of Rs.1000/- only on 07.04.2014. Further, the bill dated 07/2014 was also sent to the complainant as per actual consumption which is genuine and he is liable to pay the same. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Complainant as Annexure CW/A, photocopy of electricity bills as Annexure C-1 to C-5, photocopy of letter to SDO HSEB, Chhachhrauli dated 31..03.2014 as Annexure C-6, photocopy of bill receipt as Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence on  behalf of complainant.   

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Ashish Chopra, SDO (OP) as Annexure RW/A, photocopy of ledger copy of account No.TH19/942 as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

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

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant is having a domestic connection bearing No. Y33JH190942A2 and was paying the electricity bills regularly.

8.                     The only grievances  of the complainant is that in the month of March, 2014  he received a bill dated 10.03.2014 for a sum of Rs.7452/- in which the unit consumed have been shown as 1253 whereas the consumption of the complainant for 2 months comes between 80-107, upon which he moved an application for checking the load as well as meter and the lineman after checking the meter reported that meter has jumped and status of meter was OK, accordingly complainant requested the OPs to correct the bills but the OPs refused to do the same which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

9.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued at length that the electricity bills were issued to the complainant as per actual consumption. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that the status of the meter has been shown as OK by the said lineman and the story for jumping the meter has been falsely created just to save the skin from payment in collusion with the lineman otherwise, there was no defect in the meter in question. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that even after that the said electricity meter was showing accurate consumption of units in continuity of the units. Learned counsel for the OPs further agued that complainant never moved an application to change the meter and if there was any defect in the meter then why the complainant kept mum after the impugned Bill and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. No doubt there was consumption between 80-107 units for 2 months for the previous period but it does not mean that bill (Annexure C-1) dated 10.03.2014 for the period 20.12.2013 to 16.02.2014 showing the consumption of 1253 units was wrongly and illegally issued by the OPs Nigam, as the units consumed has been shown in continuity of the previous consumption units. Even after the disputed bill the reading of the meter in question is in its continuity which is duly evident from the photocopy of bill (Annexure C-1 to C-5). The version of complainant that as per report of lineman made on the back portion of the application given by him (Annexure C-6) that meter had jumped is not tenable as there was no ground to report such remarks without getting checked the meter from the laboratory. On the one hand, the said lineman is showing the status of meter as OK, then how he can make such report that meter had jumped. Moreover, all the digits of the meter in question cannot be jumped as there is a difference of units to the tune of 1253 i.e. old reading was 4395 and new reading was 5648. Further, prior to this bill, there was no complaint regarding the jumping of the electricity meter in question. Even after that also there is no complaint of the complainant that after the disputed bill, the meter again jumped. So merely the fact that there was consumption of 1253 units for the months 20.12.2013 to 16.02.2014, we cannot be presumed that the meter had jumped and the OPs Nigam has wrongly and illegal issued impugned bill to the complainant showing exaggerated units.

11.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Pronounced in open court: 21.06.2017                                  

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG),   

                                                                                    PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                                    YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI

 

 

                        (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)           (S.C. SHARMA)

                         MEMBER                                            MEMBER