Haryana

Ambala

CC/273/2016

Pushpa Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Kumar Rept.

19 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                           Complaint No.:273 of 2016.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 13.07.2016.

                                                           Date of Decision: 19.02.2018.

 

Pushpa Devi wife of late Om Parkash resident of village & PO Kurali Tehsil Nariangarh District Ambala (Haryana) through Gen.Power of Attorney to Pardeep Kumar s/o Mahi Pal resident of village Kurali Tehsil Nariangarh District Ambala.

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ltd. (UHBVN) through SDO Nariangarh  Sub-Division, Nariangarh District Ambala.

2.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (UHBVN) through Superintendent Engineer, Operative Circle, Ambala City.

3.Utter Harayana Bijli Vitran Nigam  Ltd. (UHBVN) through the Chief Engineer (OP) UHBVN, Panchkula (Haryana)

                                                                             …Opposite Parties.

 

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

CORAM:        SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                                                             MS.ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

Present:                Sh. Pardeep Kumar, GPA for complainant.

                             Sh.Sanjeev Chaudhary, Adv. for OP No.1 & 3.                      OP No.2 exparte.                                                     

                            

ORDER

 

                             Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is having domestic electric connection with a sanctioned load of 0.5 KW against account No.Y11KR122313N. The complainant has been making the payment of electricity regularly to the OPs and nothing was due against it. She had received a bill No.2321 dated 03.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.30526/- with sundry charges of Rs.30164.50/-. The complainant visited the SDO, Nariangarh on 11.02.2016, 19.02.2016 and 06.07.2016 to solve the above said problem by rectifying the bill but he totally refused to do so.  The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavits Annexure CX, Annexure CY and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C6.

2.                          On notice, OP Nos.1& 3 appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint reply wherein preliminary objections such as maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction and concealment of material facts have been taken. It has been submitted that the account number of the complainant is NN69-3525. The old meter of the complainant was changed as per Govt.Policy and he was issued charges on account of deficit in energy units charged in view of overhauling not being done after meter replacement of defective meter amounting to Rs.30,526/-. The production shown by the meter of the complainant A/C No.NN69-3525 from previous date 04.11.2011 current date 04.01.2012 is 02 and previous reading 3883 O and current reading was 3920 M and units was 37 M and since 04.11.2011 the status of the meter was shown to be OK and as such she was issued bills against consumption.  The complainant is liable to make the payment of the bill being based on consumption of deficit in energy units charged + charges of replacing old defective meter by new meter. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the appearing Ops tendered affidavit and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R3.

3.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file carefully.

4.                          As per Annexure R1 the meter of the complainant was replaced on 01.07.2014 vide MCO No.30 and the fact regarding defective meter has also been mentioned in Internal Audit Half Margin Annexure R2 Undisputedly, the meter of the complainant was changed in the month of July, 2014 and the amount to be recovered from the complainant has been shown in reply to the tune of Rs.30526/- after overhauling the account as per report of audit for the period from November, 2012 to May, 2014 Annexure R2. Prior to this no demand notice was ever issued by the OPs and this time also it has been done on the asking of the Internal Audit Department of OPs. Otherwise, the complainant has been paying the bills regularly and this fact is not disputed by the OPs. This demand is obviously barred by time and the delay can-not be condoned only by taking the pretext of changing the meter.   Though the Ops have placed on case file Internal Audit Half Margin report as Annexure R3 but it is strange that no date of audit has been mentioned in these documents which shows that either the same have been prepared just to fill the lacuna or to make only paper transactions without verifying the ground reality.  When the meter was changed in July, 2014 at that time the old meter was to be got tested from M&T lab but the Ops have not done so despite the fact that it was their burdened duty. Moreover, it was the duty of the Nigam to explain as to why they kept on sending the bills on average basis for long period. Undisputedly, the sanctioned load is 0.5 KW and the OPs have sent the demand for almost two years on the basis of Internal Audit but no date of said audit has been disclosed. The electricity department is a government institute but it appears that the OPs have taken the matter in a casual manner without taking-care the interest of the consumer and such like behavior from government institute is not acceptable and due to the lapse on the part of OPs the complainant has to suffer mental agony and in order to get her grievance redress she has to knock at the door of this Forum.

7.                          Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances it is clear that the complainant has proved his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence and the Ops are found deficient in providing services to her.  Hence, we allow the present complaint with costs which is assessed at Rs.3,000/- and notice dated 03.11.2015 Annexure R3 for demanding the amount of Rs.44818/- which has been issued on the basis of audit report Annexure R2 is hereby quashed. In the interest of justice the OPs are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant without surcharge for the period from November 2012 to May 2014 on the basis of consumption recorded by meter now installed at the premises from November 2016 to September 2017. The amount deposited by the complainant as part payment/ electricity charges be adjusted in the account of the complainant by issuing the bill afresh after overhauling the account. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. Order be complied within a period of 30 days. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED ON: 19.02.2018                                              

                                   

 

 

(ANAMIKA GUPTA)           (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)    (D.N. ARORA)

     MEMBER                       MEMBER                           PRESIDENT