Haryana

Ambala

CC/107/2011

PREM KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD - Opp.Party(s)

JASPREET SINGH

30 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                                                                    Complaint Case No. :    107 of 2011

                                                         Date of Institution    :     04.04.2011

                                                        Date of Decision      :     30.09.2016

Prem Kumar son of Sh. Sugan Chand R/o H.No.312, Model Town, Ambala City.

                                                                                                                                                       ……Complainant.  

                                          Versus

1.         Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. New Model Colony, Ambala City through its SDO.

2.         Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its Chairman.  

……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

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

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. Jaspreet Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Sarvjeet Singh, Adv. counsel for Ops.

ORDER.

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is rented at the abovesaid premises with the permission of Sh. Paramjit Singh and an electricity connection having  account no.MT-02-1042-H (old no. A370) is installed at the said remises. In the month of November 2009, official of OP visited the premises of complainant and found that the meter is running 41.53% fast and issued a test report bearing no. 6(015169) on 07.11.2009. Complainant further contended that in March 2010, he received  a bill of Rs.14009.50P for 2950 units whereas the consumption was very low. Thereafter, also complainant received a bill of Rs.5298.19 p. in May 2010 and thereafter in the month of July 2010, he received a bill for Rs.7838.86p and units consumed were shown as 1702 due to the fault in the meter whereas consumption was 250-300 units in two months.  Complainant further contended that he moved an application dated 18.03.2010 to OP No.1 and requested for checking of electricity meter and for correction of the bill.  Thereafter, on 20.05.2010, the electricity meter was replaced by the OP No.1. At the time of change of the meter, it was supplied by complainant and Op No.1 assured that excess amount will be adjusted after 2/3 months. On 02.12.2010,  complainant given an application for correction and adjustment of the bill but inspite of several personal visits, the Ops failed to refund the excess amount and putting off the matter on one pretext or the other.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua locus standi and maintainability of complaint. On merits, it has been submitted that the connection in question was installed on the application of one Kartar Singh at house No.312, Model Town, Ambala City. The officials of YMPL checked the electricity connection and found the meter being little bit fast and one the basis of the said report, the meter was changed vide order dated 07.04.2010 and meter was showing units correctly therefore the bill was rightly sent and as per meter reading, units consumed have been shown to be 1183 in the month of May whereas in the month of July units consumed have been shown 1702.  It has been admitted  that an application was received on 18.03.2010 for change of electricity meter and the same was accordingly changed on 12.05.2010. In the end, a prayer for disposal of the complaint has been made.

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C1 to C-18 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Ops  tendered affidavits Anenxures RX,RY & RZ alongwith documents as Annexure R-1  to R-4 and closed evidence.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. The case of the complainant is that electricity meter installed at the premises was running fast and on his application (Annexure C-2), it was changed by OP Nigam on 07.04.2010 vide Annexure R-3. Counsel for complainant argued that before the disputed bills, consumption of complainant was 250-300 bimonthly.  Counsel for Ops on the request of complainant, meter in question was changed and thereafter, the bill was sent on the actual consumption basis.

5.                     After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the objection of OP that complainant is not a consumer is not sustainable since  as per Annexure C-16, the complainant is rented at the house no.312, Model Town, Ambala and living there with the permission of one Paramjit Singh. As such, the complainant is well covered within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act. Further it is admitted fact in the pleadings of Ops as well as is clear from the affidavit Annexure RY of SDO Virender Kumar, OP Sub Divn. Ambala City whereby he mentioned that official of YMPL checked the electricity connection and found the meter fast whenever it came in their notice, meter in question was running fast they should rectify the bills as per their instructions by the Nigam but they did not do so.  If they perform their duty in time, complainant would not have knock the doors of this Forum, as such, the complainant has been dragged in unwarranted litigation and precious time of the court could be saved. We have also perused the bills Annexures C-11 to C-15 which reveals that the complainant was consuming electricity units about 300 in average bimonthly. In this way, deficiency in service is established on the part of the Ops not to rectify the bill.

                        In view of the above discussion, we hereby allowed the present complaint and direct the OPs to comply with the following directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)        To overhaul the electricity account in question for the preceding six months from issuance of MCO i.e. 07.04.2010 on the basis of average of the six months as per the new consumption.

(ii)       To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses for dragging the complainant in unwarranted litigation.

 

                             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:30.09.2016                                                                  Sd/-       

                                                                                                       (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT    

 

                                                                                                           Sd/-

                                (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                            MEMBER