Haryana

Kurukshetra

83/2016

Balwinder - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

NAresh Verma

17 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.83/16.

Date of instt.22.3.16. 

                                            Date of Decision: 17.1.18.

 

Balwinder son of Manga Ram, resident of Jyotisar, Tehsil Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

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

2.   S.D.O. Sub Division, (OP) No.1, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vita UHBVNL, Kali Kamli, Kurukshetra.

 

..………OPs.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before:              Shri G.C.Garg, President,

                        Smt. Viraj Pahil, Member,

                        Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member,                 

                       

                  

Present :       Sh. Naresh Verma, Advocate for complainant.

                       Sh. Prempal Beniwal, Advocate for the OPs.

                    

                                        

ORDER

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by Balwinder complainant against Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is having electricity connection bearing account No.K-21KE280712F and has been making the payment of electricity charges regularly, hence he is consumer qua Ops. The Ops issued a bill for the month of February, 2016 for a sum of Rs.16,992/- which is wrong, illegal and arbitrary as the complainant had already paid the entire bill. In the month of December, 2014 the Ops have removed the meter of the complainant as the meter was defective and till today no meter has been installed in the house and the supply has also not been connected. There is no electric supply in the house of complainant from December,2014 up to date, so the bill issued by the OP demanding the amount of Rs.16,,992/- is wrong, illegally and the complainant is not liable to pay the same. The complainant visited the office of Ops and requested to set aside the above said bill but they did not pay any heed. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, the present complaint has been moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to set aside the bill and to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.

3.             Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts. The true facts are that the meter of the complainant was removed vide PDCO No.2/218 dated 29.12.2014 on 4.2.2015 and after that the account was overhauled. In view of the calculation of period of last one year, the amount was debited in the account of complainant after noting the difference between the units in comparison of the last one year, the amount was overhauled. Thereafter, the amount of Rs.5526/- were adjusted in the account of complainant. So, the bill has been rightly sent to the complainant and he is liable to pay with the Nigam. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were reiterated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.            Both the parties have led their respective evidence to prove their version.

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

6.            The stand of the Ops is that the meter of the complainant was removed vide PDCO No.2/218 dated 29.12.2014 on 4.2.2015 and after that the account was overhauled and thereafter, the amount of Rs.5526/- were adjusted in the account of complainant. The Ops have failed to produce any document to prove that the meter of the complainant was removed vide Permanent Disconnection Order No.2/218 nor produced copy of account ledger to prove that the amount of Rs.5526/- was adjusted after overhauling the account. So, the bill bearing No.437511585334 for the month of February, 2016 amounting to Rs.16,992/- is hereby declared null and void and the Ops are not entitled to recover the same from the complainant.

7.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the bill bearing No.437511585334 for the month of February, 2016 amounting to Rs.16,992/- is hereby set aside and the Ops are restrained to recover the said amount from the complainant. Copy of this order; be supplied to both the parties, free of costs. The file be; consigned to the record room.

Announced:    

Dt. 17.1.2018.                               (G.C.Garg)

                                                   President,

                District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra.

 

 

                             

 

(Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)        (Viraj Pahil)

Member                                   Member