Haryana

Ambala

CC/150/2019

Anil Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Manu Rastogi

14 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                                         Complaint case no.         :  150 of 2019

                                                                         Date of Institution           :  02.05.2019

                                                                            Date of decision           :  14.02.2020.

 

Anil Mittal son of Sh. Balkishan Dass, aged about 67 years, resident of 5210/12, D.C. Road, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt.

          ……. Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Chairman Shakti Bhawan Sector-6, Panchkula.
2. SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division No.II, UHBVN, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt.

                                                               ….…. Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.          

                            

Present:       Shri Rohit Mittal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri P.K. Bansal, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’), praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To struck down the bill dated 24.01.2019 amounting Rs.34,552/- and issue a fresh bill on average basis of previous consumption by the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.10,000 /- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation charges.

 

•  

 

Any other relief whichthis Hon’ble Forum may deemfit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a consumer of electricity having domestic supply against consumer account No.:6462800000 with a sanctioned load of 4.90 KW. He is getting electricity bills as per the consumption ranging from 300 units to 700 units for 2 months during the last one year and is regularly making the payment of the electricity bills. Complainant lastly paid the electricity bill dated 03.12.2018, for the period from 07.09.2018 to 08.11.2018 for 281 units. In January, 2018 complainant did not receive any bill from the side of OP No.2 and thus requested for a duplicate bill and the officials of OP No.2 issued a electricity bill dated 14.01.2019 for 789 units from 08.11.2018 to 09.01.2019, for a total amount of Rs.3,829/- and when the complainant went to deposit the same the cashier of the OP No.2 refused to accept the amount on the pretext that this bill is not correct and the higher amount is due and then complainant was handed over a revised duplicate bill dated 24.01.2019, for the same period for a total of 4476 units for Rs.34,552/-. The alleged bill for 4476 units is totally false and there was no such excessive usage of electricity in the house and same is required to be corrected. The next bill for the period from 09.01.2019 to 08.03.2019 has been generated for 526 units i.e. Rs.2,045.30/- only which was offered to be deposited by the complainant, but the same was also refused to be received by the OP No.2 on the pretext that the arrears of Rs.35,555.14/- for the previous bill be deposited first. Complainant also served a legal notice dated 05.04.2019, but of no avail. By not correcting the bill of the complainant, OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint. 

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written version stating therein that OPs sent the bill dated 14.01.2019 for the consumption of 789 units from 08.11.2018 to 09.01.2019 for Rs.3,829/- and thereafter supplied the duplicate copy of bill as desired by the complainant, but despite of that has filed the present complaint. The OPs have rightly issued the bill. The complainant never visited the OPs for deposit of any amount as alleged. The OPs are working as per the instructions of Government of Haryana and the rules and regulations of the Nigam and the complainant cannot said to be deficient in service and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Shri Priynk Jhanbra, SDO, UHBVN, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP-A and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.

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

5.                Admittedly, OPs had issued a domestic electric connection bearing account No.6462800000, with sanctioned load of 4.90 KW, in favour of the complainant. The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that complainant was usually consuming electricity between 300 to 700 units, within two months and was paying the bills regularly. However, in the month of January, 2018, he did not receive the bill. On his request, the officials of the OP No.2, issued a duplicate bill dated 14.01.2019 of Rs.3,829/- for consumption of 789 units of electricity, for the period from 08.11.2018 to 09.01.2019. He went to deposit the  amount of Rs.3829/- but the cashier refused to accept the said amount, on the pretext that this bill is not correct and handed over a revised duplicate bill dated 24.01.2019, of Rs.34,552/- for consumption of 4476 units, for the period from 08.11.2018 to 09.01.2019, to the complainant. There was no excessive usage of electricity by the complainant during this period and due to some technical defect, the meter had shown consumption of 4476 units and the demand raised by the OPs vide bill dated 24.01.2019, is illegal. Thus, they may be directed to withdraw the bill dated 24.01.2019 and allow the complainant to pay Rs.3829/- for consumption of 789 units of electricity, during the period from 08.11.2018 to 09.01.2019, as per bill dated 14.01.2019, issued by the Ops.

                    On the other hand, the learned counsel for Ops argued that the bill dated 14.01.2019 was duly supplied to the complainant. However, on his request a duplicate bill was also provided to him. Bill dated 24.01.2019, was rightly issued by the OPs, after verifying the record. The OPs have not committed any deficiency in service and the present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

                   From the previous consumption pattern, mentioned in the electricity bill dated 14.11.2018, Annexure C-1, it is apparent  that the complainant had consumed maximum 1772 units and minimum 318 units of electricity during last one year. Vide bill dated 14.01.2019, Annexure-C3 OPs had raised the demand of Rs.3,829/-, for consumption of electricity of 789 units, for the period from 08.11.2018 to 09.01.2019. It is not understandable that once the OPs had issued a bill dated 14.01.2019, Annexure C-3, for consumption of 789 units of electricity, for the period from 08. 11.2018 to 09.01.2019, then why and how they had again issued the bill dated 24.01.2019, Annexure C-4, for the same period i.e. 08.11.2018 to 09.01.2019, by showing consumption of 4476 units of electricity. No reason, whatsoever has been given by the OPs, for issuance of two bills, for the same period. In this situation, we do not hesitate to conclude that by issuing the bill dated 24.01.2019, the OPs have committed deficiency in service.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the bill dated 24.01.2019 and charge Rs.3829/- on account of consumption of electricity for the period from 08.11.2018 to 09.01.2019, as per bill dated 14.01.2019. The OPs are also directed to overhaul the account of the complainant upto date accordingly, without charging any delayed payment interest/penalty/ surcharge. They are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. Furthermore, we direct the OPs to comply with this order within 45 days, from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room, after due compliance

Announced: 14.02.2020

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)             (Ruby Sharma)              (Neena Sandhu)

           Member                                Member                                President

                                                                                      DCDRF, Ambala.