Haryana

Ambala

CC/328/2015

Ramesh Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashutosh Aggarwal

26 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                           Complaint No.:328 of 2015.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 18.11.2015.

                                                           Date of Decision: 26.10.2017.

 

Ramesh Jain w/o Sh.Arjun Dass Jain r/o H.No.905, Sector-9 U.E.Ambala City.

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division-A 32 East, Ambala City.

2.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through Executive Engineer, Operation Division, UHBVN, Ambala City.

 

                                                                             …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. Ashutosh Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant.

                             Sh. Vivek Sachdeva, counsel for the opposite parties.

 

ORDER:

 

                             Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that complainant is having electricity connection bearing account No.US09-4283-X (Old A/No.H-3398) and the meter is installed on the electricity poll outside her premises. She has been making the payment of electricity bills regularly but the Ops had sent a bill for Rs.50251/- for 8330 units, therefore, the complainant approached the OPs and moved an application dated 18.02.2014 and thereafter meter of the complainant was checked but no corrective measures were taken and the complainant had paid Rs.46000/- out of Rs.61005/- under compelling circumstances on 25.02.2014. The complainant got served legal notice upon the OPs but instead of correcting the bill they further sent bill dated 11.03.2014 of Rs.67054/-, therefore, the complainant also paid Rs.21054/- (67054-46000=21054).  The complainant sought information under RTI and found that the consumption of electricity during the previous months bills than the disputed bill was very less.  The meter during the period from 15.08.2013 to 15.12.2013 had jumped over from 5589 to 13919 units, therefore, it had shown 8330 units. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C12.

2.                          On notice, OPs appeared and contested the complaint by filing their joint reply wherein preliminary objections such as maintainability, suppression of material facts, limitation and cause of action etc. have been taken.  It has been submitted that the bill for the period from 15.08.2013 to 15.12.2013 was issued as per actual consumption of electricity and the OPs had never raised unreasonable bill to the complainant. Neither any application for checking of meter was ever received by the OPs nor meter of the complainant was checked by them. In the bill to the tune of Rs.67054/- surcharge was also included. The complaint has been filed after a period of two years on 17.11.2015 despite the fact that the bill was for dated 15.08.2015. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the OPs have tendered affidavit Annexure RX and document Annexure R1.

3.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and documents on the file carefully.

4.                          Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the meter took jump and due to this 8330 units were shown as consumed in the bill for the period from 15.08.2013 to 15.12.2013 and the Ops did not rectify the same despite moving an application because the in the previous bills the consumed units have been shown less than the bill sent for 8330 units. It has been further argued that the complainant had to pay the bill under compelling circumstances.  

 5.                         On the other hand counsel for the OPs has argued that the bill for the period from 15.08.2013 to 15.12.2013 was issued as per actual consumption of electricity and the OPs had never raised unreasonable bill to the complainant. It has been further argued that neither any application for checking of meter was ever received by the OPs nor meter of the complainant was checked by them and in the bill to the tune of Rs.67054/- surcharge was also included.

6.                          The point for determination before this Forum is that as to whether the opposite party has rightly issued the bill for the period from 15.08.2013 to 15.12.2013 to the complainant or not? A perusal of the impugned bill reveals that the meter has been shown as OK and complainant did not dispute about the correctness of the meter. Though he had moved an application (Annexure C2) to the Nigam  with complaint of meter jumped but he had not requested to get the meter checked from M&T Lab in the said application.  The opposite parties have taken a specific stand that the bill in dispute issued to the complainant is correct on the basis actual consumption.  In order to prove this fact the Ops have placed on record copy of data Account of the meter of the complainant for the period from 2010 to 2014 which clearly shows that the OPs had sent the bill for actual consumption to the complainant.  The grievance of the complainant regarding bill for the period from 15.08.2013 to 15.12.2013 which reflects the actual consumption 8330 as mentioned as Sr. No.21 of Annexure R1/Annexure C1. There is nothing on the file to show that the bill in question had been issued wrongly and illegally and the complainant was ever forced to pay the electricity bill. It appears that in order to take undue advantage of Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has approached to this Forum without any reason by twisting the facts.

7.                            In view of the aforementioned discussion we are of the considered opinion that the complaint deserves dismissal being devoid of any merit. It is ordered accordingly. There is no order as to costs.  Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED ON: 26.10.2017                                               (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

 

(ANAMIKA GUPTA)                                               (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

     MEMBER                                                             MEMBER