Haryana

Ambala

CC/95/2011

SANJEEV KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD - Opp.Party(s)

R.K JINDAL

30 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

     Complaint Case No. :    95 of 2011

                Date of Institution    :     18.03.2011

                 Date of Decision      :     30.09.2016

Sanjeev Kumar S/o Kala Ram Gauri R/o villae Tundli P.O. Kalarheri Tehsil and District Ambala.

                                                           ……Complainant.   

                                                                                         Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Divn. A-14, village Babyal, Ambala

Cantt through its SDO.

……Opposite Party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

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

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. R.K. Jindal, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Sarvjeet Singh, Adv. counsel for Op.

ORDER.

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is having an electricity connection installed in his name bearing account no.BH01-2561-A (old account no.E-227) and average consumption of the complainant is about 450 to 650 units bimonthly. It has been contended that complainant was surprised when he received bill dated 22.02.2011 of 10231 units for a sum of Rs.54030/-. So, complainant immediately visited the OP and appraised them about illegal bill and requested to correct the same but the OP not corrected the same rather threatened the complainant to disconnect his electricity connection, if he fails to deposit the amount of bill in question and has also threatened to recover the above-said amount from the complainant forcibly. As such, the complainant has alleged that the Op is deficient and negligent in providing proper services to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                     Upon notice, Op appeared through counsel and raised preliminary objection qua non-maintainability of complaint and locus standi. On merits, it has been submitted that the bills issued by the Ops for a period spanning over 30.11.2010 to 31.01.2011 is correct and as per the actual consumption recorded by the meter reader, complainant has consumed 10231 units and thereby a sum of Rs.54030/- was due towards the complainant.  Moreover, there was no defect in the meter of the complainant and thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C1 to C-12 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered affidavit  Annexure RW1/A alongwith document as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.  

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. The complainant has challenged the electricity bill Annexure C-1 amounting to Rs.54030/- for the period from 30.11.2010 to 31.01.2011 for 10231 units. Counsel for complainant has also placed on record electricity bills Annexure C-2 to C-12 for the period previous to the alleged bill which shows that the complainant was using electricity supply 400 units in average bimonthly. On the other hand, counsel for OP has argued that the OP Nigam is not at fault in any way and they have sent the bill to the complainant on actual average basis as recorded by the Meter Reader. As such, there is no negligence and deficiency in service on their part. OP in order to support their case, has placed on record document  bill statement (Annexure R-1) whereby  they have shown electricity units consumed by complainant from 08/2009 to 04/2011  are ranging from 176 to 646 units bimonthly except the bill in dispute.

5.                     After going through the record placed on file, only dispute arise in this case is that the Op has send a bill for the period 30.11.2010 to 31.01.2011 demanding a sum of Rs.54030/- for the unit 16399 -6158 (old reading) i.e. 10231 units.  We have also perused the previous bill Annexure C-2  to C-7  as under:-

                                                                                               

1.         Annexure C-2             534 units         Rs.9304/-

2.         Annexure C-3             611                  Rs.4294/-

3.         Annexure C-4             464 units         Rs.4678/-

4.         Annexure C-5             177 units         Rs.2762/-

Annexure C-6             176 units         Rs.2082/-

Annexure C-7             351 units         Rs.1362/-

 

                        Annexure C-12 is the inspection report made by the Private Agency of the meter of the complainant wherein status of meter is has been shown as OK.  Meaning thereby that the complainant was consuming the electricity not more than 400-600 units bimonthly but the OP has sent the bill for the period from 30.11.2010 to 31.01.2011  of 10231 units which is highly exaggerated. Even otherwise, as per annexure C-2 further period 30.09.2010 to 31.11.2010 consumption has been shown 6158-5624 totaling 534 units only.  It means that the Op has sent the disputed bill without any reasons or rhymes and not explain why they have sent the bill of such huge amount whereas it was the primary duty of Op or their officer to check the previous consumption as well as the further consumption and if there was any mistake, they should rectify it in further bills. Even otherwise, OP also placed on record the consumption data since 08/2009 to 04/2011 wherein average consumption of electricity connection of complainant has been not more than 176-646.  In view of the above discussion, we presume that the complainant has never consumed electricity more than 600 units. Accordingly, Ops are deficient and negligent in sending the bill in question which is at higher side wherefrom it is established that complainant has never consumed such heavy units of electricity. If the Ops performed their duty in time, complainant would not have knocked the doors of this Forum whereas on the other hand, Op has not come before the court with clean hands and they never taken the plea in their written statement that they are ready to rectify the impugned bill Ex.C-1.  Hence, we party allowed the complaint with no order as to costs and direct the OPs to comply with the following directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To rectify the bill in question dated 28.02.2011 having 10231 units of Rs.54020/- for the period from 30.11.2010 to 31.01.2011 on the basis of consumption of corresponding period of the previous year as well as of the coming year from the said disputed bill  and send a fresh bill which is on higher side comparatively out of both the period. However, it made clear that if any amount already paid by the complainant qua the bill in dispute be also adjusted.

 

                             In case of OP fails to comply with the above directions, complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings U/s 25/27 of Consumer Protection Act against them. 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