BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.107/13.

Date of instt.: 07.06.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 19.12.2014.

Salma Wd/o Sh. Abdul Hamid S/o Sh. Mazid Khan, R/o Main Bazar, near Hind Cinema Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through its S.D.O. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.1, Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

2. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula, through its Secretary/M.D.

..……..Opposite Parties.

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

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Devender Singh, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Harikesh, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that she is consumer of Ops vide electric connection bearing No.KC-23-6039 and has been paying the bills regularly.  The complainant has challenged the bill of April, 2011 and June, 2011 as in the bill of June, 2011, the old reading has been shown as 1517 and new reading 22188 i.e. total for the consumed units of 20671.  The said bill is wrong and illegal.  It is further alleged that the complainant deposited amount of Rs.20,000/- on 22.11.2012, Rs.20,000/- on 18.12.2012 and Rs.5,000/- on 15.10.2012 as part payment.  It is further alleged that the Ops despite resolving grievances of complainant issued bill No.1343 dt. 12.05.2013 amounting to Rs.1,52,932/-.  The said bill is wrong, illegal and excessive.  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; that the complainant is defaulter of the Ops on account of electricity bills upto May, 2013 of Rs.1,57,387/-, which is pending due towards her and she had been asked to pay for the electricity which she had consumed but she is not making the payment of the electricity charges which she had consumed and for which the complainant is bound to pay.  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 their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.

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 in February, 2011 the Ops issued bill for old reading 386 and new reading 1517 and thereafter, in April, 2011 the Ops illegally and unlawfully imposed bill for the old reading 1517 and new reading 20809 and in the month of June, 2011 issued consumption bill for old reading 1517 and new reading 22188 i.e. total for the consumed units of 20671 which is illegal and unlawful.  The complainant protested for the disputed reading and bills upon which the Ops assured to issue revise bill on the basis of actual consumption.  The Ops despite resolving grievances of the complainant issued bill No.1343 dt. 12.05.2013 amounting to Rs.1,52,932/-.  On the other hand, the Ops contends that the Ops have issued all the bills according to the actual energy of the electricity consumed by the complainant.  On careful perusal of all the documents available on the file, we found that after the MCO, the Ops did not check the meter of complainant in M & T lab of Ops for accuracy of defective meter.  So, the Ops did not find any defect in the meter of complainant.  The connected load of complainant is only 2.00 K.W. and the Ops sent a bill in June, 2011 which showed consumed units 20671 which is not apologizable.    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.  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.19.12.2014.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.107/13.

Date of instt.: 07.06.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 19.12.2014.

Salma Wd/o Sh. Abdul Hamid S/o Sh. Mazid Khan, R/o Main Bazar, near Hind Cinema Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through its S.D.O. ‘OP’ Sub Division No.1, Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

2. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula, through its Secretary/M.D.

..……..Opposite Parties.

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

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Devender Singh, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Harikesh, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that she is consumer of Ops vide electric connection bearing No.KC-23-6039 and has been paying the bills regularly.  The complainant has challenged the bill of April, 2011 and June, 2011 as in the bill of June, 2011, the old reading has been shown as 1517 and new reading 22188 i.e. total for the consumed units of 20671.  The said bill is wrong and illegal.  It is further alleged that the complainant deposited amount of Rs.20,000/- on 22.11.2012, Rs.20,000/- on 18.12.2012 and Rs.5,000/- on 15.10.2012 as part payment.  It is further alleged that the Ops despite resolving grievances of complainant issued bill No.1343 dt. 12.05.2013 amounting to Rs.1,52,932/-.  The said bill is wrong, illegal and excessive.  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; that the complainant is defaulter of the Ops on account of electricity bills upto May, 2013 of Rs.1,57,387/-, which is pending due towards her and she had been asked to pay for the electricity which she had consumed but she is not making the payment of the electricity charges which she had consumed and for which the complainant is bound to pay.  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 their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.

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 in February, 2011 the Ops issued bill for old reading 386 and new reading 1517 and thereafter, in April, 2011 the Ops illegally and unlawfully imposed bill for the old reading 1517 and new reading 20809 and in the month of June, 2011 issued consumption bill for old reading 1517 and new reading 22188 i.e. total for the consumed units of 20671 which is illegal and unlawful.  The complainant protested for the disputed reading and bills upon which the Ops assured to issue revise bill on the basis of actual consumption.  The Ops despite resolving grievances of the complainant issued bill No.1343 dt. 12.05.2013 amounting to Rs.1,52,932/-.  On the other hand, the Ops contends that the Ops have issued all the bills according to the actual energy of the electricity consumed by the complainant.  On careful perusal of all the documents available on the file, we found that after the MCO, the Ops did not check the meter of complainant in M & T lab of Ops for accuracy of defective meter.  So, the Ops did not find any defect in the meter of complainant.  The connected load of complainant is only 2.00 K.W. and the Ops sent a bill in June, 2011 which showed consumed units 20671 which is not apologizable.    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.  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.19.12.2014.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.