Haryana

Ambala

CC/190/2015

Surjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

M.L.Sharma

29 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                       Complaint Case No. :    190 of 2015

       Date of Institution    :    15.07.2015.

        Date of Decision      :    29.11.2017

 

Surjeet Singh son of Sh.Kalah Singh resident of village Lakhnaur Sahib Tehsil & District Ambala.

……Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan Sector 6, Panchkula through Executive Engineer, Operation Division, UHBVN Cross Road, Ambala Cantonment.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation Sub Division, U.H.B.V.N, Division No.1 Ambala Cantonment.

                                                                                                        ..…Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

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

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                        MS.ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

                       

Present:          Complainant in person.

                        Sh. Sarvjeet Singh, Adv. counsel for Ops.

 

ORDER

 

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is having a residential house in village Lakhnaur Sahib where a domestic electric meter NO.OD24-1792-H (Old a/c No.LK-1220) is installed and he has been making the payment of electricity regularly. The meter of the complainant was working properly but  the OP No.2 had shown the meter as dead and started issuing the bill on average basis i.e. 700 units for every two months. The complainant visited OP No.2 number of times and requested to issue accurate bill as the meter was recording accurate consumption of units. The Ops never issued accurate and proper bill to the complainant. Now the OPs have issued a notice vide memo No.429 dated 15.01.2015 for an amount of Rs.31,215/- and also issued a bill for an amount of Rs.34507/- to be paid in the month of June, 2015. The amount has been imposed upon the complainant wrongly and illegally and he requested the OP No.2 for allowing him to deposit the amount so demanded by them but he was asked to deposit Rs.34507/-firstly. The demand of bill in question am amounting to Rs.34507/- is illegal and is liable to be set aside because the meter of the complainant is still working properly. The complainant requested the Ops many a times to withdraw the above said notice and bill but to no effect.  The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure C1 and documents Annexure C2 to Annexure C8.

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed joint reply to the complaint wherein it has been submitted that the electricity meter bearing No.KN10-2367/0D24-1792 remained defective from July, 2012 to March 2014 and the defective meter was replaced with new meter but the account pertaining to the defective period could not be overhauled after the replacement of defective meter on account of bonafide mistake on the part of the officials of the OPs and the mistake was detected during the audit vide half margin No.4008/90 dated 02.12.2014, therefore, the account of the complainant was overhauled and the complainant was liable to pay Rs.31,215/- to the OPs and the said amount was demanded from the complainant by including the same in the bills. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavit Annexure RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R3.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully.

5.                     The complainant has challenged the notice no.429 dated 15.01.2015 whereby the OPs have demanded Rs. 31,215/- & subsequent bill of Rs. 34,507/- payable in the month of July, 2015.

6.                To decide the controversy, this Forum had directed the department to produce the MCO as well as statement of account of disputed connection No.OD24-1792-H(Old a/c No.LK-1220). Today, Shri Ram Lal Lineman appeared and made a statement that  the meter of the complainant was changed in March , 2013 but due to mistake it continued in D-code mode and therefore, average bills  for 560 units were sent to the complainant from April, 2013 to April, 2014. The complainant had consumed 8028 units during this period but the bills were sent to him for 3920 units. The department had issued notice for Rs. 29250/- vide notice dated 15.01.2015 qua difference in units which is 4108 units.

7.                In the present case, due to fault on behalf of the OPs the meter of the complainant got D-code and therefore,  average bills were issued by the OPs, therefore, the complainant cannot be held liable for this fault. Hence, in the interest of justice, surcharge on this amount is waived of. However, he is directed to deposit amount of Rs. 29250/-  to the OPs being difference of unpaid 4108 units with next bi-monthly  bill without surcharge. Accordingly, the present complaint is disposed of. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

ANNOUNCED ON: 29.11.2017                                               (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

 

(ANAMIKA GUPTA)                                               (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

     MEMBER                                                             MEMBER