Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/524/2019

Pawan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 Mar 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.524 of  of 2019.

                                                                          Date of Instt.:6.12.2019

                                                                          Date of decision:06.03.2020.

 

Pawan Kumar aged 44 years, son of Sh.Puran Chand Manchanda, resident of village Jhansa , Tehsil Pehowa District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                                    Versus

 

1.SDO, UHBVNL, Sub Davison, Ajrana Kalan, Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra.

2.XEN, UHBVN, Shahabad (M) District Kurukshetra.

        ….…Opposite parties.

 

              Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                Ms. Neelam, Member.     

                Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.           

               

Present:    Complainant in person.

                Sh.S.C.Saini Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

.

ORDER

 

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Pawan Kumar against SDO. UHBVNL etc.- the opposite parties.

 

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the  complainant is depositing his electricity dues regularly and for the last four months he is being harassed by the OPs.  Two months ago he was issued the bill for Rs.4431/- wherein amount of Rs.2773/- was  wrongly  added pertaining to some other consumer.  By moving an application to the OP, he got rectified the bill and amount of Rs.2773/-was deducted from his bill and he deposited the amount of Rs.1658/- with the OPs vide receipt dated 10.09.2019.  It is averred that when the bill No.K830024 was issued to him an amount of Rs.2867/- was wrongly added in his bill due to two persons of the same name. His bill No.K830024 has not been rectified by the OP despite repeated requests and online complaint No.CMPK12000/94304 but the  complaint was closed by the OP by saying that  that it is correct and  you would be given information through RTI but nothing has been done which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed that the OPs be directed to rectify the bill of the complainant and compensation of Rs.10,000/- be given to him.

 

3.             Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is submitted that as per record account No.KB-3-0214  which is in the name of Pawan Kumar son of Puran Chand r/o Mega Majra stand of  defaulting amount of Rs.2867/- pending, one other account No. KB-31-2019 which is in the name of above same, above said amount of Rs.2867/- was wrongly charged.  Thereafter bill was set right and Rs.3026/-  are adjusted vide SCAR No.2/158/157 dated  17.12.2019 in the account  No.KB-31-2019 after verification of record.  However, the complainant has filed the present  frivolous complaint  against the answering OP.  Thus, it is submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint. Preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, estoppel, cause of action and concealment of true and material facts have been raised.

 

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed his evidence.

 

5.             The OPs in support of their case have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 and closed their evidence.

 

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

7.             The complainant while reiterating all the averments made in the complaint has argued  that two months ago he was issued the bill for Rs.4431/- wherein amount of Rs.2773/- was added pertaining to some other consumer.  By moving an application to the OP, he got rectified the bill and amount of Rs.2773/-was deducted from his bill and he deposited the amount of Rs.1658/- with the OPs vide receipt dated 10.09.2019.  It is argued  that  when the bill No.K830024 was issued to him an  amount of Rs.2867/- was wrongly added in his bill due to two persons of the same name. His bill No.K830024 has not been  rectified by the OP despite repeated requests and online complaint No.CMPK12000/94304 but his complaint was closed.

 

8.             Contrary to it, learned counsel for OPs while reiterating the contents of the reply has argued that as per record account No.KB-3-0214  which is in the name of Pawan Kumar son of Puran Chand r/o Mega Majra stand of  defaulting amount of Rs.2867/- pending, one other account No. KB-31-2019 which is in the name of above same, above said amount of Rs.2867/- was wrongly charged.  Thereafter bill was set right and Rs.3026/-  are adjusted vide SCAR No.2/158/157 dated  17.12.2019 in the account  No.KB-31-2019 after verification of record.

 

 9.            However, during course of arguments, the complainant has admitted that his bill has been now rectified but he has claimed compensation for the harassment caused to him. Admittedly, the complainant has filed the present complaint in December 2019 and only thereafter bill of  the complainant has been rectified vide document Ex.R-1, therefore, the complainant had to file litigation to get his bill rectified which  was result of some mistake of the OPs  and as such deficiency in services on the part of OPs is made out. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to compensation for deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

 

10.           So, in view of our aforementioned findings and observations, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.2000/-  in lump sum as compensation.  The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 06.03.2020                                                  (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                 President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal), (Neelam)             

Member                         Member.