BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.62/14.
Date of instt.: 25.03.2014.
Date of Decision: 17.07.2015.
Darshana Devi wife of Dalbir Singh, resident of Model Town, Jind Road, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. UHBVN OP Sub Division No.2, Kaithal through its S.D.O.
2. UHBVN OP Sub Division No.2, Kaithal through XEN.
3. UHBVN, Panchkula Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Secretary.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Present : Sh. Anil Chutani, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Ramesh Rana, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he has an electric connection bearing account No.KA-23/2566 since September, 2013 and has been paying the bills regularly. It is alleged that the Ops sent a bogus and forged bill to the complainant for sum of Rs.73044/- payable upto 10.03.2014 showing the illegal consumed units of 10959. It is further alleged that the display of the meter of complainant is defective and to this effect, the complainant moved an application in the office of Ops to replace the defective meter and to correct the wrong and illegal bill, but the officials of the Ops did not take any action on the request 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 raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the complainant has an electric connection bearing account No.KA-23-2566. The connection load of the complainant is 6.5 K.W. and meter was installed on 02.09.2013. The first billing was issued for the sum of Rs.6638/- of 1050 units after three months on average basis due to showing “N” code by meter-reader. The next billing was issued on 03.02.2014 of 10959 units for 5 months on actual consumption from 02.09.2013 to 03.02.2014 in this bill, the first bill of Rs.6638/- was deducted and a bill of Rs.73044/- was issued on actual consumption. After filing of case, the complainant deposited 50% amount on 25.03.2014. So, the bill for 05.02.2014 of Rs.69,897/- is correct in which the previous balance Rs.37,595/- is shown as per rules. The defective meter of the complainant was changed on 07.04.2014 vide MCO No.44/133. 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. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C5..
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is having electricity connection No.KA-23/2566 and has been paying the bills regularly. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that the Ops sent a bogus and forged bill to the complainant for sum of Rs.73044/-. The said bill is wrong, illegal and excessive. He further contends that the meter of complainant was defective and to this effect the complainant also moved an application to the Ops on 21.03.2014 vide which the complainant requested the Ops to correct the meter as-well-as for correction of bill, the copy of said application Ex.C1 is placed on file. But the Ops did not correct the said bill. The Ops have admitted in their reply that the meter in question was found defective. The M.C.O., Ex.R1 was effected on 26.03.2014 and meter was replaced on 07.04.2014. On perusal of bill No.01346 dt. 21.04.2014, in the column of meter status code, the meter is shown defective which means that the Ops have issued the wrong bill to the complainant. In this regard, 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.
So, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops in rendering services to the complainant.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to overhaul the account of complainant and adjust all the paid bills according to the average of meter-reading of succeeding six months from the date of MCO of meter i.e. 07.04.2014 and further to pay Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of order. 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.17.07.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Rajbir Singh),
Member.
