Haryana

StateCommission

A/849/2016

BALJINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

RAKESH NUNIWAL

19 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      849 of 2016

Date of Institution:     16.09.2016

Date of Decision :      19.10.2016

 

Baljinder Singh age 52 years, son of Sh. Raj Kishan alias Raj Kumar, resident of Village Teora, District Kurukshetra.

          Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sector 6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

2.      Sub Divisional Officer/A.E.E Operation, Sub Division, Shahbad City-1.

3.      The Executive Engineer, Operation Division, UHBVNL, Shahbad (M), District Kurukshetra.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

      

                                                                                           

Present:     Shri Rakesh Nuniwal, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated July 18^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by him was dismissed.  

2.      Baljinder Singh-complainant was having domestic electric connection bearing No.K11SC144322AS from Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘UHBVNL’)-opposite parties. He was paying the bills to the UHBVNL regularly.  The average consumption of the complainant was 60-80 units per months. UHBVNL sent bill dated February 25^th, 2011 for Rs.10,482.67 to the complainant showing consumption of 2131 units.   Complainant requested the UHBVNL to correct the aforesaid bill but to no avail.  Hence, he filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.   

3.      The UHBVNL, in its written version, denied the averments of the complaint and pleaded that old reading of the meter of complainant was 3934 and new reading was 6065 units for the period December 2010 to February 2011.  Thus, the UHBVNL rightly issued bill dated February 25^th, 2011 for Rs.10,482.67 to the complainant.  

4.      The only plea raised by learned counsel for the complainant is that the average consumption of the complainant was 60-80 units per months but the UHBVNL has wrongly sent the bills (Exhibit C-1 to C6) showing consumption of 2131 units.

5.      This Commission does not concur with the submission of learned counsel for the complainant in view of the fact that bills (Exhibit C-1 to C-6) show the status of the meter OK.  UHBVNL has placed on record consumer (complainant) ledger whereby the complainant has consumed 240 units for the period August 01^st, 2011 to October 01^st, 2011 and again 240 units for the period October 01^st, 2011 to December 01^st, 2011.  The units consumed by the complainant for the period December 02^nd, 2010 to February 02^nd, 2011 was 2131, for which the UHBVNL was entitled to charge.  Thus, the order under challenge requires no interference.  The appeal is dismissed.

 

Announced 19.10.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

(UK)