Haryana

StateCommission

A/575/2018

MUNISHWAR DAYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

CHHAVI SHARMA

28 Jan 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No.575 of 2018

Date of Institution:03.05.2018

                                                               Date of Decision: 28.01.2019

 

Munishwar Dayal s/o Sh. Sh.Yogeshwar Dayal, R/o H.No.414/22 Prabhu Nagar Mandi Sonipat, Tehsil and District Sonipat, Haryana.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

SDO U.H.B.V.N.L. Ltd., S-11, Industrial Area, Sonipat, Haryana.

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:              Mr.R.P.Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

Mrs. Alka Joshi, Advocate for the respondent alongwith Sub Divisional Officer  of the area concerned.

 

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.

2.      The present appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 06.02.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) vide which the complaint instituted by the complainant-appellant was dismissed.

3.      Briefly stated, the fact of the case are that the complainant-appellant-Munishwar Dayal was having electricity connection bearing account No.9031730000 at his residence.  The connection was in the name of his father, who was died on 10.05.2015. The O.P.  has issued wrong bill of Rs.2994/- and Rs.27,386/- for the period from 22.10.2014 to 22.12.2014 and 22.02.2015 to 22.04.2015 respectively.  He requested the OP to replace the defective meter, but, of no se.  The meter was checked and found that seals were intact and meter was running.  The O.P. also issued another wrong bill of Rs.1,49,504/-, Rs.1,58,480/-  and Rs.1,72,860/- dated 08.05.2017, for the period 22.10.2016 to 22.12.2016  and   22.12.2016 to 22.02.2017  respectively.  The connection of the complainant was disconnected by the OP on 27.07.2017 instead of replacement of the meter.  He was ready to deposit the bills on average basis from 22.02.2015 upto date.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

4.      Notice being issued. Opposite party (O.P.) contested the complaint and it has been alleged in the written version that  the complainant has not deposited a single penny from 3/2015 to 10/2017 with it except the amount deposited as per the order of the forum.  The O.P. installed the check meter with the previous meter of the complainant to check the accuracy of the previous meter.  MTO was done on 03.08.2015. The old reading was 18908 and new checked meter was installed with reading 1.  It was observed that 75 units were consumed by the previous meter and 73 reading were consumed by the new/checked meter. The amount of Rs.1,55,403/- was still pending towards the complainant.  The bills issued to him was correct, he was liable to pay the same to the respondent.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

5.      After hearing both the parties, Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 06.02.2018.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellants has preferred this appeal.

7.      The argument have been advanced by Mr.
R.P.Saini, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs. Alka Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records had been properly perused and examined.

8.      It is the case set up by the appellant that there was a regular jump in the electric meter and as such, no accurate reading could be recorded and the O.P. has also issued the inflated bill, for which, he has not liable to make the payment.

9.      However, under the directions of the Learned District Forum, he has already deposited the amount of Rs.60,000/- and as such, the present appellant is not liable to make any payment to the O.P.  Refuting the contention raised on behalf of the appellant, it has been vehemently argued by the counsel for the respondent Mrs. Alka Joshi, that appellant is a consumer of the respondent and he is not making the payment for the last three years.   She had also referred to the copy of the ledger Annexure R-1 wherein the outstanding amount against the present appellant is Rs.1,55,403/-.  Even a check meter was also installed and it has been reported that as per the consumption data of new and old meter, the difference of excess consumption was below 3% and the meter accuracy was correct.  The learned counsel for the respondent has also produced the copy of the guidelines and instructions and as per instruction No.4.9, clause 3, which is relevant and is as under:-

“3.     In case of accuracy of electromechanical meter is found plus minus 3% fast/slow, the meter shall be considered as defective and charges shall be levied in accordance with the instruction No.4.12 (SI No.24.2010).”

10.    If the difference between the old meter and new meter is plus minus 3%, in that eventuality, the reading would be deemed to be defective, but, in the present case the difference of the old and new reading was 2.73% which is arbitrarily less than 3%, in that eventuality, the reading of the consumption of units would be deemed to be correct and the electro meter will not be considered to be defective.  Since the complainant, who is now a appellant is not paid any charges for the last three years and as per the ledger Annexure R-1 wherein the outstanding amount against present appellant is Rs.1,55,403/-.  It is a public money and no person can be allowed to embezzle or misutilized the public money.   The appellant is liable to pay the outstanding bill to the respondent.  Hence, the complaint has been rightly dismissed by the learned District Forum and the present appeal is also being devoid of merits stands dismissed.  However, the respondent shall proceed further to recover the outstanding amount from the appellant in accordance with rules and regulations of the Nigam.

 

January 28th, 2019                                                    Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                                                       Judicial Member                                                                                                                   Addl.Bench               

S.K.