Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/469/2019

Puspinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

B.R.Bharti

16 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.469 of 2019

                                                     Date of institution: 23.10.2019                                                                     Date of decision:16.03.2022.                                                      

                         

Pushpinder Sigh son of Sh.Partap Singh resident of New  Saraswati Colony, Opposite SKIET College Kheri Markanda, Kurukshetra District Kurukshetra.

                                                                …Complainant.

                        Versus

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

2.Sub Divisional Officer/AEE Operation Sub Division, Kalikamli, District Kurukshetra.

3. Executive Engineer, Operation Division, UHBVN, Kurukshetra.

.                                                               ….Opposite parties.

               

                Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh.  Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     Sh.B.R.Bharti  Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh.S.C.Saini Advocate for the Ops.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been moved by Pushpinder Singh against UHBVN Limited  etc.-Opposite Parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is the consumer qua the Ops vide electricity connection No.8008570000 but for the last six months the Ops never sent the bill of the complainant and in this regard the complainant made a complaint to the Ops through internet bearing No. 41187  dated 8.8.2019 but the OP never took any action on his complaint. Then the complainant moved an application on the C.M. Window and thereafter the Ops have sent the illegal bill of Rs.48,822.89 to the complainant. The Ops never took the reading of the meter of the complainant and have intentionally sent the illegal bill, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant alleging deficiency in services has filed the present complaint and prayed that the Ops be directed to over haul  the account of the complainant, not to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant  and not to lodge any case against the complainant.

3.             Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed their joint written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  Issuance of the electricity connection bearing NO.8008570000 as domestic connection is admitted. The Nigam is providing full supply to the complainant as per Nigam rules and the said connection is being used by the complainant and as per consumption the Nigam has issued the bill amounting to Rs.48,882/- is a legal and as per actual consumption. The billed units are mentioned in the bill. The bill was sending to the compliance of balance units.  It is submitted that the bill is legal and valid as per actual consumption consumed by the complainant. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically and it is submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit  Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence.

5.             On the other hand, Ops in support of their case have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 and closed their evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the case file.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued  that  the complainant is the consumer qua the Ops vide electricity connection No.8008570000 but for the last six months the Ops never sent the bill of the complainant and in this regard the complainant made a complaint to the Ops through internet bearing No. 41187  dated 8.8.2019 but the OP never took any action on his complaint. Then the complainant moved an application on the C.M. Window and thereafter the Ops have sent the illegal bill of Rs.48,822.89 to the complainant. The Ops never took the reading of the meter of the complainant and have intentionally sent the illegal bill, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops while reiterating the submissions made in the written statement has argued that Nigam is providing full supply to the complainant as per Nigam rules and the said connection is being used by the complainant and as per consumption the Nigam has issued the bill amounting to Rs.48,882/- is a legal and as per actual consumption.  It is further argued that the  billed units are mentioned in the bill. The bill was sending to the compliance of balance units.  It is also argued that the bill is legal and valid as per actual consumption consumed by the complainant.

9.             As per pleadings of the complainant, the bill was not sent for several months and all of sudden the Ops sent the bill Ex.C-1 for Rs.48,822/-. This bill was issued for 6324.7 units and the slab system of Rs.7.100 per unit was adopted by the Ops.  The complainant has stated that for several months consumption reading was also not recorded. This disputed bill is issued for  12.3.2019 to 19.9.2019 and the said bill is issued for 191 days.

10.            In our opinion in such like cases ends of justice shall met, if the Ops are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant by taking the reading of the preceding year reading of the same months in place of the disputed bill. Therefore, the Ops shall overhaul the account of the complainant by issuing the rectified bill by taking the reading of 12.03.2018 to 19.09.2019 instead of 12.3.2019 to 19.9.2019. Therefore, issuing the excessive bill and adopting the  wrong  tariff from the complainant and such an act amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

11.            In view of our above findings, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to overhaul the account of the complainant by issuing the rectified bill by taking the reading  consumed for the period of 12.03.2018 to 19.09.2018 instead of 12.3.2019 to 19.9.2019. The applicable tariff shall also be applied by the Ops in view of the units consumed during the said preceding year period instead of tariff of Rs. 7.100 per unit as shown in the dispute bill Ex.C-1. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of 30 days from the date of preparation of certified copies of this order.  Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in  the open Commission.

Dated:16.03.2022.                                               President.

 

                        Member             Member.