Haryana

Kurukshetra

293/2016

Kulwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

S.J.Singh

26 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                Complaint Case No.293/16.

                                                          Date of instt. 27.10.16. 

                                                        Date of Decision:26.10.2018.

Kulwant Singh son of Kapoor Singh, resident of House No.227/2, Majri Mohalla Shahbad Markanda, Tehsil Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.       

                                                                                       ……….Complainant.      

 

                                        Versus

 

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Managing Director.
2. The Executive Engineer, OP Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Limited, Shahbad Markanda, Tehsil Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.
3. S.D.O, Operation Sub Division No.1, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Limited, Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.

..………Opposite parties

 

  Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before:        Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                  Ms. Neelam, Member.

                  Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:       Sh. S.J.Singh, Adv. for the complainant.

                  Sh. Prempal Beniwal, Adv. for OPs.

       

ORDER

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Kulwant Singh against Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Managing Director, Panchkula and others, the opposite parties.

2.             Brief facts of the complaint are that electricity connection bearing No.6010610000 (old account No.2143301UKA332420) was taken in the name of his father Kapoor Singh (now deceased) and the complainant is using the above said connection being beneficiary and has been making payment of electricity charges regularly, hence he is consumer qua OPs. The complainant received a bill dated 9.6.2016 for the amount of Rs.44,053/- with the meter reading of 4381 units and the complainant approached the Ops by moving an application on 26.5.2016. The officials of the Ops including JE visited the house of complainant and after verification the last reading was noted as 16136 on 27.5.2016 whereas it was mentioned as 19932 in the bill dated 9.5.2016 and then the bill was taken back and a new bill dated 27.5.2016 was issued for the amount of Rs.7643/- and the said bill was paid vide receipt dated 27.5.2016.  The next bill was issued for the amount of Rs.2,039/- on 8.7.2016. Now the complainant has received a bill dated 9.9.2016 vide which an amount of Rs.35,679/- have been demanded by the Ops illegally. The said bill has been raised against units consumed 3749 whereas the last consumptions have been shown as 319,201,351,271, 312 and 410 for the months of May, 2016, March, 2016, January, 2016, November, 2015, September, 2015 and July, 2015.  Last reading has been shown as 19619.  After receipt of the above said bill, the complainant approached the OP No.3 and gave an application requesting him to correct the said bill, but the Ops have refused to correct the same and threatened the complainant to deposit the amount, failing which disconnection of the electricity connection will be made. Again an application was given to the XEN, Shahbad Markanda on 3.10.2016 but nothing has been done so far.  Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to declare the bill dated 9.9.2016 as illegal, null and void, not to recover the illegal amount of Rs.35,679/-, not to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has got no cause of action or locus-standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum. In fact, on  27.5.2016, the meter of the complainant was checked by the JE of the Nigam in the presence of consumer and it was found that meter reading was 16136. After that the bill of the complainant was corrected by the Ops as per report of JE.  During checking, it was found that the repairing and construction work was going on in the house and various electric instruments were used i.e. grinding motor, cutter motor and water motor was in running position. So, the complainant used the electricity on large scale, hence the meter reading was increased due to use of electricity. On 9.6.2016 meter of the complainant shifted outside the premises in the presence of complainant and old meter reading was recorded 19619 in the presence of complainant vide meter change order No.02/14 dated 9.6.2016 and was signed by the complainant. After that old meter was deposited in the store vide challan No.2 dated 18.7.2016 and the reading was verified by the SDO, M&T Lab. Yamuna Nagar as 19619 and Nigam is entitled to recover the bill of electricity consumed by the complainant. So, the Ops are entitled to recover the remaining bill mentioned in the Meter Blank Report. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. On merits, the remaining contents of the complaint were denied. Preliminary objections were repeated. Prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4.             The complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, photo stat copy of electricity bill as Ex.C1, application written to the SDO, UHBVNL, Shahbad Markanda as Ex.C2, photo stat copy of electricity bill as Ex.C3, photo stat copy of receipt as Ex.C4, photo stat copies of bills as Ex.C5 & C6, photo stat copy of application as Ex.C7 and thereafter closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence accounts ledger as Ex.R1 to R4, photo stat copy of application as Ex.R5, photo stat copy of meter change order as Ex.R6 and photo stat copies of meter blank reports as Ex.R7 & R8 and thereafter closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have gone through the record file very carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that on 09.05.2016 the complainant received a bill of Rs.44,053/- and after receiving the bill, he gave an application to the Ops about verification of the electricity bill on 26.05.2016, copy of application Ex.C2 is placed on the file.  On 27.05.2016, the employees of Ops came to his house and after checking the meter, they made a report on the back side of said application, Ex.C2 in which it was shown that the meter reading is 16136 and they corrected the bill from Rs.44,053 to Rs.7425/-.  The complainant paid the bill, receipt of which is Ex.C4 placed on the file.  After that the Ops send a bill to the complainant, Ex.C5 in which old reading was shown as 19932 and new reading nil.  The counsel of complainant  contended that on 09.09.2016 again a bill was issued in which old reading shown 15870 and new reading 19619, which is Ex.C6 placed on the file.  The complainant has challenged the said bill (Ex.C6) for a sum of Rs.35,679/-.  The said bill is wrong and illegal because there is difference between the old reading and new reading, which is shown in the bills, Ex.C3, Ex.C5 and Ex.C6.  He argued that the Ops are not entitled to recover the bill of Rs.35,679/- from the complainant.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops admitted the fact that on 26.05.2016 the complainant gave application, Ex.C2 to the department and after checking, it was written by the employees of the department meter reading as 16136 and it was also admitted by the counsel of Ops that after correction, the bill was paid by the complainant, receipt of which Ex.C4 is placed on the file.  The next point which was argued by the counsel of Ops is that the new meter was installed by the department in the premises of complainant.  The construction work was going on in the house of complainant and so, the meter reading was excessive.  The reading shown by the Ops in the bill is not illegal.

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  We are fortified with the contentions of counsel for the complainant.  There is no momentum of force in the submissions of counsel for the Ops.  From perusal of record, it is clear that all the bills have shown different old and new reading which shows that the Ops have wrongly issued the bill amounting to Rs.35,679/-, Ex.C6 to the complainant and thus, the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.  So, in such like circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Ops are not liable to recover the amount of Rs.35,679/- from the complainant and the said bill, Ex.C6 is to be treated as null and void.

10.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to declare the bill, Ex.C6 as null and void and not to recover the amount of Rs.35,679/- from the complainant.  The amount already deposited by the complainant by order of this Forum dt. 20.02.2017, if any, be refunded to the complainant.  The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation charges.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:26.10.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.