BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.62/12.

Date of instt.: 08.02.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 12.01.2015.

Rameshwar son of Telu Ram, resident of Mahadev Colony, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. UHBVN Sub Division No.1, Kaithal through S.D.O.

2. UHBVN Kaithal through XEN.

3. UHBVN Panchkula, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Secretary.

4. Nand Lal, ALM UHBVN, Siwan Gate, Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Raj Raman Dixit, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Harikesh, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 to 3.

Sh. Anil Sirohi, Adv. for Op No.4.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection No.X41 K-C/291017H and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.4 for new domestic electric connection and paid Rs.4200/- as expenses of the new connection, but the Op No.4 issued a receipt of Rs.1635/- vide receipt No.03 dt. 17.02.2010.  It is further alleged that the Op No.4 installed the new meter in the premises of complainant which was in the name of Sahab Singh, who was the defaulter of Rs.50,000/-.  It is further alleged that the complainant visited the office of Op No.1 and submitted the illegal bill in the office and the officials of Op No.1 has rectified the illegal bill and meter in the name of complainant.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately.  Ops No.1 to 3 filed joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the complainant is not making the payment of electricity bills (charges of electricity consumed by him); that the meter of account installed in the premises also remained dead stop for a certain period and remained un-functional, the record/document showing the facts regarding the correct reading consumed by the complainant and units being un-functional are Annexure R2, R3 and R4.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.     Op No.4 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that there is no relationship of consumer and the service-provider between the complainant and the Op No.4.  The Op No.4 being employee of UHBVN is not personally liable for any deficiency in service, if any, on the part of UHBVN.  On merits, it is stated that the answering Op never received any amount of Rs.4200/- as alleged from the complainant.  The answering Op never installed any electricity meter in the premises of complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  The other contents of complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.      

4.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.

5.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

6.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

7.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection bearing account No.KC-291017-H.  The complainant approached the Op No.4 for new domestic electric connection and paid Rs.4200/- as expenses of the new connection, but the Op No.4 issued a receipt of Rs.1635/- vide receipt No.03 dt. 17.02.2010.  The Op No.4 installed the new meter in the premises of complainant which was in the name of Sahab Singh, who was the defaulter of Rs.50,000/-.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 to 3 contends that the meter of account installed in the premises also remained dead stop for a certain period and remained un-functional, the record/document showing the facts regarding the correct reading consumed by the complainant and units being un-functional are Annexure R2, R3 and R4.  Ld. Counsel for the Op No.4 contends that there is no relationship of consumer and the service-provider between the complainant and the Op No.4.  The Op No.4 being employee of UHBVN is not personally liable for any deficiency in service, if any, on the part of UHBVN.  It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant had moved an application to XEN, UHBVN Department on 01.09.2011 to the effect that he has compromised with Op No.4 namely Sh. Nand Lal and he does not want to take any action against him.  So, we are of the considered view that the Op No.4 is not deficient on his part.  So far as relief in the main case is concerned, we are guided with the instructions of U.H.B.V.N. and as per instruction No.116, it has been mentioned as under:-

Difference or Dispute over the Accuracy.

        Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter is or is not correct, the matter should be decided, upon the application by either party by the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as amended from time to time and if in his opinion, the meter is not correct, the Electrical Inspector shall estimate the amount of adjustment to be carried out in the consumer’s account for a period not exceeding six months preceding the date of test. 

8.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops No.1 to 3 to overhaul the account of complainant considering the account number X41K-C/291017-H of the complainant and adjust all the paid bills according to the average of meter-reading of succeeding six months from the date of disputed bill.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.12.01.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.62/12.

Date of instt.: 08.02.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 12.01.2015.

Rameshwar son of Telu Ram, resident of Mahadev Colony, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. UHBVN Sub Division No.1, Kaithal through S.D.O.

2. UHBVN Kaithal through XEN.

3. UHBVN Panchkula, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Secretary.

4. Nand Lal, ALM UHBVN, Siwan Gate, Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Raj Raman Dixit, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Harikesh, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 to 3.

Sh. Anil Sirohi, Adv. for Op No.4.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection No.X41 K-C/291017H and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.4 for new domestic electric connection and paid Rs.4200/- as expenses of the new connection, but the Op No.4 issued a receipt of Rs.1635/- vide receipt No.03 dt. 17.02.2010.  It is further alleged that the Op No.4 installed the new meter in the premises of complainant which was in the name of Sahab Singh, who was the defaulter of Rs.50,000/-.  It is further alleged that the complainant visited the office of Op No.1 and submitted the illegal bill in the office and the officials of Op No.1 has rectified the illegal bill and meter in the name of complainant.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately.  Ops No.1 to 3 filed joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the complainant is not making the payment of electricity bills (charges of electricity consumed by him); that the meter of account installed in the premises also remained dead stop for a certain period and remained un-functional, the record/document showing the facts regarding the correct reading consumed by the complainant and units being un-functional are Annexure R2, R3 and R4.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.     Op No.4 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that there is no relationship of consumer and the service-provider between the complainant and the Op No.4.  The Op No.4 being employee of UHBVN is not personally liable for any deficiency in service, if any, on the part of UHBVN.  On merits, it is stated that the answering Op never received any amount of Rs.4200/- as alleged from the complainant.  The answering Op never installed any electricity meter in the premises of complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  The other contents of complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.      

4.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.

5.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

6.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

7.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection bearing account No.KC-291017-H.  The complainant approached the Op No.4 for new domestic electric connection and paid Rs.4200/- as expenses of the new connection, but the Op No.4 issued a receipt of Rs.1635/- vide receipt No.03 dt. 17.02.2010.  The Op No.4 installed the new meter in the premises of complainant which was in the name of Sahab Singh, who was the defaulter of Rs.50,000/-.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 to 3 contends that the meter of account installed in the premises also remained dead stop for a certain period and remained un-functional, the record/document showing the facts regarding the correct reading consumed by the complainant and units being un-functional are Annexure R2, R3 and R4.  Ld. Counsel for the Op No.4 contends that there is no relationship of consumer and the service-provider between the complainant and the Op No.4.  The Op No.4 being employee of UHBVN is not personally liable for any deficiency in service, if any, on the part of UHBVN.  It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant had moved an application to XEN, UHBVN Department on 01.09.2011 to the effect that he has compromised with Op No.4 namely Sh. Nand Lal and he does not want to take any action against him.  So, we are of the considered view that the Op No.4 is not deficient on his part.  So far as relief in the main case is concerned, we are guided with the instructions of U.H.B.V.N. and as per instruction No.116, it has been mentioned as under:-

Difference or Dispute over the Accuracy.

        Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter is or is not correct, the matter should be decided, upon the application by either party by the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as amended from time to time and if in his opinion, the meter is not correct, the Electrical Inspector shall estimate the amount of adjustment to be carried out in the consumer’s account for a period not exceeding six months preceding the date of test. 

8.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops No.1 to 3 to overhaul the account of complainant considering the account number X41K-C/291017-H of the complainant and adjust all the paid bills according to the average of meter-reading of succeeding six months from the date of disputed bill.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.12.01.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.62/12.

Date of instt.: 08.02.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 12.01.2015.

Rameshwar son of Telu Ram, resident of Mahadev Colony, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. UHBVN Sub Division No.1, Kaithal through S.D.O.

2. UHBVN Kaithal through XEN.

3. UHBVN Panchkula, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Secretary.

4. Nand Lal, ALM UHBVN, Siwan Gate, Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Raj Raman Dixit, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Harikesh, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 to 3.

Sh. Anil Sirohi, Adv. for Op No.4.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection No.X41 K-C/291017H and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.4 for new domestic electric connection and paid Rs.4200/- as expenses of the new connection, but the Op No.4 issued a receipt of Rs.1635/- vide receipt No.03 dt. 17.02.2010.  It is further alleged that the Op No.4 installed the new meter in the premises of complainant which was in the name of Sahab Singh, who was the defaulter of Rs.50,000/-.  It is further alleged that the complainant visited the office of Op No.1 and submitted the illegal bill in the office and the officials of Op No.1 has rectified the illegal bill and meter in the name of complainant.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately.  Ops No.1 to 3 filed joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the complainant is not making the payment of electricity bills (charges of electricity consumed by him); that the meter of account installed in the premises also remained dead stop for a certain period and remained un-functional, the record/document showing the facts regarding the correct reading consumed by the complainant and units being un-functional are Annexure R2, R3 and R4.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.     Op No.4 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that there is no relationship of consumer and the service-provider between the complainant and the Op No.4.  The Op No.4 being employee of UHBVN is not personally liable for any deficiency in service, if any, on the part of UHBVN.  On merits, it is stated that the answering Op never received any amount of Rs.4200/- as alleged from the complainant.  The answering Op never installed any electricity meter in the premises of complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  The other contents of complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.      

4.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.

5.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

6.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

7.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection bearing account No.KC-291017-H.  The complainant approached the Op No.4 for new domestic electric connection and paid Rs.4200/- as expenses of the new connection, but the Op No.4 issued a receipt of Rs.1635/- vide receipt No.03 dt. 17.02.2010.  The Op No.4 installed the new meter in the premises of complainant which was in the name of Sahab Singh, who was the defaulter of Rs.50,000/-.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 to 3 contends that the meter of account installed in the premises also remained dead stop for a certain period and remained un-functional, the record/document showing the facts regarding the correct reading consumed by the complainant and units being un-functional are Annexure R2, R3 and R4.  Ld. Counsel for the Op No.4 contends that there is no relationship of consumer and the service-provider between the complainant and the Op No.4.  The Op No.4 being employee of UHBVN is not personally liable for any deficiency in service, if any, on the part of UHBVN.  It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant had moved an application to XEN, UHBVN Department on 01.09.2011 to the effect that he has compromised with Op No.4 namely Sh. Nand Lal and he does not want to take any action against him.  So, we are of the considered view that the Op No.4 is not deficient on his part.  So far as relief in the main case is concerned, we are guided with the instructions of U.H.B.V.N. and as per instruction No.116, it has been mentioned as under:-

Difference or Dispute over the Accuracy.

        Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter is or is not correct, the matter should be decided, upon the application by either party by the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as amended from time to time and if in his opinion, the meter is not correct, the Electrical Inspector shall estimate the amount of adjustment to be carried out in the consumer’s account for a period not exceeding six months preceding the date of test. 

8.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops No.1 to 3 to overhaul the account of complainant considering the account number X41K-C/291017-H of the complainant and adjust all the paid bills according to the average of meter-reading of succeeding six months from the date of disputed bill.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.12.01.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.62/12.

Date of instt.: 08.02.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 12.01.2015.

Rameshwar son of Telu Ram, resident of Mahadev Colony, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. UHBVN Sub Division No.1, Kaithal through S.D.O.

2. UHBVN Kaithal through XEN.

3. UHBVN Panchkula, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Secretary.

4. Nand Lal, ALM UHBVN, Siwan Gate, Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Raj Raman Dixit, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Harikesh, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 to 3.

Sh. Anil Sirohi, Adv. for Op No.4.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection No.X41 K-C/291017H and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.4 for new domestic electric connection and paid Rs.4200/- as expenses of the new connection, but the Op No.4 issued a receipt of Rs.1635/- vide receipt No.03 dt. 17.02.2010.  It is further alleged that the Op No.4 installed the new meter in the premises of complainant which was in the name of Sahab Singh, who was the defaulter of Rs.50,000/-.  It is further alleged that the complainant visited the office of Op No.1 and submitted the illegal bill in the office and the officials of Op No.1 has rectified the illegal bill and meter in the name of complainant.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately.  Ops No.1 to 3 filed joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the complainant is not making the payment of electricity bills (charges of electricity consumed by him); that the meter of account installed in the premises also remained dead stop for a certain period and remained un-functional, the record/document showing the facts regarding the correct reading consumed by the complainant and units being un-functional are Annexure R2, R3 and R4.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.     Op No.4 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that there is no relationship of consumer and the service-provider between the complainant and the Op No.4.  The Op No.4 being employee of UHBVN is not personally liable for any deficiency in service, if any, on the part of UHBVN.  On merits, it is stated that the answering Op never received any amount of Rs.4200/- as alleged from the complainant.  The answering Op never installed any electricity meter in the premises of complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  The other contents of complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.      

4.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.

5.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

6.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

7.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection bearing account No.KC-291017-H.  The complainant approached the Op No.4 for new domestic electric connection and paid Rs.4200/- as expenses of the new connection, but the Op No.4 issued a receipt of Rs.1635/- vide receipt No.03 dt. 17.02.2010.  The Op No.4 installed the new meter in the premises of complainant which was in the name of Sahab Singh, who was the defaulter of Rs.50,000/-.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 to 3 contends that the meter of account installed in the premises also remained dead stop for a certain period and remained un-functional, the record/document showing the facts regarding the correct reading consumed by the complainant and units being un-functional are Annexure R2, R3 and R4.  Ld. Counsel for the Op No.4 contends that there is no relationship of consumer and the service-provider between the complainant and the Op No.4.  The Op No.4 being employee of UHBVN is not personally liable for any deficiency in service, if any, on the part of UHBVN.  It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant had moved an application to XEN, UHBVN Department on 01.09.2011 to the effect that he has compromised with Op No.4 namely Sh. Nand Lal and he does not want to take any action against him.  So, we are of the considered view that the Op No.4 is not deficient on his part.  So far as relief in the main case is concerned, we are guided with the instructions of U.H.B.V.N. and as per instruction No.116, it has been mentioned as under:-

Difference or Dispute over the Accuracy.

        Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter is or is not correct, the matter should be decided, upon the application by either party by the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as amended from time to time and if in his opinion, the meter is not correct, the Electrical Inspector shall estimate the amount of adjustment to be carried out in the consumer’s account for a period not exceeding six months preceding the date of test. 

8.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops No.1 to 3 to overhaul the account of complainant considering the account number X41K-C/291017-H of the complainant and adjust all the paid bills according to the average of meter-reading of succeeding six months from the date of disputed bill.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.12.01.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.62/12.

Date of instt.: 08.02.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 12.01.2015.

Rameshwar son of Telu Ram, resident of Mahadev Colony, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. UHBVN Sub Division No.1, Kaithal through S.D.O.

2. UHBVN Kaithal through XEN.

3. UHBVN Panchkula, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Secretary.

4. Nand Lal, ALM UHBVN, Siwan Gate, Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Raj Raman Dixit, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Harikesh, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 to 3.

Sh. Anil Sirohi, Adv. for Op No.4.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection No.X41 K-C/291017H and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.4 for new domestic electric connection and paid Rs.4200/- as expenses of the new connection, but the Op No.4 issued a receipt of Rs.1635/- vide receipt No.03 dt. 17.02.2010.  It is further alleged that the Op No.4 installed the new meter in the premises of complainant which was in the name of Sahab Singh, who was the defaulter of Rs.50,000/-.  It is further alleged that the complainant visited the office of Op No.1 and submitted the illegal bill in the office and the officials of Op No.1 has rectified the illegal bill and meter in the name of complainant.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately.  Ops No.1 to 3 filed joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the complainant is not making the payment of electricity bills (charges of electricity consumed by him); that the meter of account installed in the premises also remained dead stop for a certain period and remained un-functional, the record/document showing the facts regarding the correct reading consumed by the complainant and units being un-functional are Annexure R2, R3 and R4.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.     Op No.4 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that there is no relationship of consumer and the service-provider between the complainant and the Op No.4.  The Op No.4 being employee of UHBVN is not personally liable for any deficiency in service, if any, on the part of UHBVN.  On merits, it is stated that the answering Op never received any amount of Rs.4200/- as alleged from the complainant.  The answering Op never installed any electricity meter in the premises of complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  The other contents of complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.      

4.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.

5.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

6.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

7.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection bearing account No.KC-291017-H.  The complainant approached the Op No.4 for new domestic electric connection and paid Rs.4200/- as expenses of the new connection, but the Op No.4 issued a receipt of Rs.1635/- vide receipt No.03 dt. 17.02.2010.  The Op No.4 installed the new meter in the premises of complainant which was in the name of Sahab Singh, who was the defaulter of Rs.50,000/-.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 to 3 contends that the meter of account installed in the premises also remained dead stop for a certain period and remained un-functional, the record/document showing the facts regarding the correct reading consumed by the complainant and units being un-functional are Annexure R2, R3 and R4.  Ld. Counsel for the Op No.4 contends that there is no relationship of consumer and the service-provider between the complainant and the Op No.4.  The Op No.4 being employee of UHBVN is not personally liable for any deficiency in service, if any, on the part of UHBVN.  It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant had moved an application to XEN, UHBVN Department on 01.09.2011 to the effect that he has compromised with Op No.4 namely Sh. Nand Lal and he does not want to take any action against him.  So, we are of the considered view that the Op No.4 is not deficient on his part.  So far as relief in the main case is concerned, we are guided with the instructions of U.H.B.V.N. and as per instruction No.116, it has been mentioned as under:-

Difference or Dispute over the Accuracy.

        Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter is or is not correct, the matter should be decided, upon the application by either party by the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as amended from time to time and if in his opinion, the meter is not correct, the Electrical Inspector shall estimate the amount of adjustment to be carried out in the consumer’s account for a period not exceeding six months preceding the date of test. 

8.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops No.1 to 3 to overhaul the account of complainant considering the account number X41K-C/291017-H of the complainant and adjust all the paid bills according to the average of meter-reading of succeeding six months from the date of disputed bill.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.12.01.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.