Haryana

Karnal

CC/121/2018

Manga Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.N. Monga

11 Apr 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 121 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt. 22.05.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 11.04.2019

 

Mange Ram aged about 49 years son of Shri Matu Ram resident of village Bibipur Jattan Tehsil Indri District Karnal (Adhar no.6899 8644 5242)

 

                                                                                 …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1. UHBVN Ltd. Shakti Bhawan, sector 6, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

2. Sub Divisional Officer (OP), Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Ltd. Sub Division, Indri Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri S.N. Moonga Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri Amit Munjal Advocate for opposite parties.

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that the father of the complainant died in the year 1993 and after his death the complainant has been using said electricity connection and has been paying the electricity bill regularly. In the month of July, 2016 the electricity meter installed in the premises of the complainant became defective and the complainant moved an application to OP no.2 for the replacement of the meter. Thereafter, site was checked by the JE concerned and after checking of site, he stated that complainant has to deposit a sum of Rs.1250/-as cost of new meter as his meter has been burnt and has to be replaced with new one. Accordingly, as per the instructions of the JE the complainant deposited the said amount of Rs.1250/- in the office of the OP no.2, vide BA-16 no.202/107098 dated 8.8.2016. After deposit of the said amount, the OP no.2 assured the complainant that his meter will be replaced within 15-20 days but same was not replaced by OP no.2. The complainant visited the office of OP no.2 so many times and requested for replacement of the meter but officials of the OP no.2 always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. However, the OPs sent the bills on average basis which were regularly paid by the complainant. On 27/28.4.2018 the JE of the area alongwith some other officials visited the premises of the complainant and removed the electricity meter and wire from the house of the complainant in a illegal and unlawful manner. Thereafter, complainant visited the OP no.2 and requested for replacement of the meter by moving an application, on this the OP no.2 stated that an amount of Rs.12,235/- is due and outstanding against him. The complainant deposited the said amount on 14.5.2018 under protest. Thereafter, complainant again visited the office of OP no.2 and requested for restoration of the electricity connection but OP no.2 did not do so without disclosing any sufficient cause. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi; maintainability; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file and maintain this complaint and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the field staff of the office of the defendants visited the house of complainant for replacement of meter and as per policy of the government meter is to be installed outside premises but the complainant was pressurizing the field’s staff to install the meter inside the house. It is further pleaded that an amount of Rs.12,235/- is due and outstanding as per the consumption of the electricity by the complainant. It is further pleaded that the electricity supply of premises of the complainant has never been disconnected and as such there is no question arises at all of restoring the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 15.02.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Nand Kishore Ex.R1/A and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 closed the evidence on 28.03.2019.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant is that in the month of July, 2016 the electricity meter of the complainant became defective and complainant moved an application to the OP no.2 for replacement of the meter. On 8.8.2016 the complainant deposited Rs.1250/- as cost of new meter as his meter has been burnt but OPs failed to replace the meter and postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Bills sent by OPs on average basis were paid by complainant. On 27-28/4/2018 official of OPs have removed the electricity meter and wire from the house of the complainant in an illegal and unlawful manner. On 28.04.2018 OPs disconnected the electricity supply of the premises of the complainant and OPs starting demand of Rs.12,235/-as outstanding amount and same was deposited under protest on 14.05.2018. Even OPs did not restore the supply of his house. As per circular no.U-7/2003 the complainant is not bound to pay electricity charges of the burnt meter.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OPs is that the official of the OPs visited the house of complainant for replacement of meter and as per policy of Government meter is to be installed outside premises but complainant was pressuring to install the meter inside the house. The amount of Rs.12,235/- was due and outstanding as per the consumption by the complainant. The complainant is totally irregular in making payment of electricity charges.

8.             On the application of complainant, the electricity meter installed in the premises was got checked by the OPs and reported to be burnt. The complainant deposited of Rs.1250/- as cost of new meter. Complainant also deposited Rs.12,235/-, vide bill receipt Ex.C2 as average basis bill. As per the reply and evidence of the OPs, the electricity supply of premises of the complainant has not been disconnected. But as per version of the complainant the electricity supply was disconnected by the OPs. The version of the OPs that complainant pressurized the official of the OPs to install the electricity meter inside the premises of the complainant is not believable as OPs have failed to produce in evidence any of the official’s affidavit who had gone to replace the electricity meter in the house of complainant. The complainant already paid Rs.12,235/-. The OPs failed to satisfy this Forum on what basis they have prepared Ex.R1. Hence, we are the view that the act of the OPs is amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

9.             Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to replace the burnt meter of the complainant if not replaced and to restore the electricity supply of the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:11.04.2019                                                                       

                                                                      President,

                                                              District Consumer Disputes

                                                               Redressal Forum, Karnal.      

 

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                           Member