Haryana

Jind

251/13

Sat Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Bhupender Bairagi

01 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 251 of 2013

   Date of Institution: 5.12.2013

   Date of final order: 2.1.2015

 

Sat Pal Singh s/o Shri Molar Ram r/o H.No.4444 Defence Colony, Jind.     

                                                                    ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

Sub Divisional Officer, UHBVN City Division, Jind.

                                                            …..Opposite party.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before: Sh. Hari Singh Khokhar, President.

            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.

 

Present: Sh. Sat Pal Singh complainant in person.

             Sh. Bhupender Bairagi, Adv. for  opposite Party.

            

ORDER:

             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant  is consumer of the opposite party having electricity connection No. DF11/247.  Sudden fault occurred in his meter  and complaint of same was immediately given in the first week of July, 2011 to the opposite party. On checking the meter was found burnt. The complainant purchased a new meter and handed over to Mr. Malik, J.E. and deposited a sum of Rs.190/- as meter testing fees from the Lab.  The meter was replaced without testing from Lab which did not show units consumed on replacing and the word ‘ERROR’ appeared on its screen.

                        Satpal Singh Vs. UHBVN

                                        …2…

The opposite party again asked the complainant to purchase one more meter. He had purchased second time meter for a sum of Rs.900/- and deposited with the opposite party along with testing fees amount from Lab. The opposite party regularly charged Rs.40/- meter rent in each bill inspite of having own meter. The opposite party has wrongly charged a sum of Rs.2686/- in bill No.1289 for the period from 28.5.2013 to 28.7.2013 and Rs.1749/- through bill No.1282 dated 28.7.2013.  The complainant visited the office of opposite party several times and requested to refund the illegal bills amount but the opposite party did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite party be directed to refund Rs.4435/- charged extra to the complainant.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party has put in appearance and filed the written reply stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no cause of action and  locus-standi to file the present complaint; the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum and the complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it is contended that the  meter account of complainant was overhauled on the basis of Audit report and after due verification it was found that in the month of October, 2011 bill was rendered only 292 unit which was very less and unit was to be charged of 782 unit and difference comes of 390 unit. As per Sundry No.177/19 sundry amount of Rs.1749/- has been added in the bill after adjusting the amount which was paid by the complainant.  In the month of Feburary, 2012 unit was to be charged

                        Satpal Singh Vs. UHBVN

                                        …3…

466 unit but bill was rendered only 116 unit and difference comes of 350 unit. As per Sundry No.177/09 amount of Rs.2686/- was added in the bill of complainant. The opposite party charged the above said amount is legal and genuine one. All the other allegations have been denied by the opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for.

3.       In evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1 and  copies of  electricity bills and receipts  Ex. C-2 to C-9 and closed the evidence.    On the other hand, the opposite party has produced the  affidavit of Sh. K.C. Dhanda, SDO Ex. OP-1, copies of document Ex. OP-2 to OP-4, copy of  application Ex. OP-5, copy of MCO Ex. OP-6, copy of reconnection order Ex. OP-7 and copy of sundry charges Ex. OP-8  and closed the evidence.

4.       We have heard the arguments  of  both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. As per intimation of complainant Ex. OP-5, the opposite party checked the meter No.DF11/247 and found that it is burnt.  On the instruction of opposite party, the complainant purchased new meter and deposited Rs.190/- meter testing fees but the opposite party replaced the meter without testing from Lab which did not show units consumed and the  word ‘error’ appeared on its screen. The complainant was never informed regarding the state of meter on testing from Lab. On the instruction of opposite party, the complainant purchased second time one more meter Ex. C-5.  The opposite party has wrongly charged a sum of Rs.2686/- in bill No.1289 and Rs.1749/- in bill No.1282 dated 28.7.2013. The complainant visited the office of opposite party several times and requested to refund the illegal bills amount but the opposite party did not pay any

                             Satpal Singh Vs. UHBVN

                                        …4…

heed on the request of the complainant.

5.         On the other hand, the opposite party has averred that the meter account of complainant was overhauled on the basis of audit report and after due verification it was found that in the month of October, 2011 a bill was rendered only 292 units which was very less and unit was to be charged 782 units and difference comes of 390 units. As per sundry No.177/19 sundry amount of Rs.1749/- has been added in the bill after adjusting the amount which was paid by the complainant. In the month of  Feburary, 2012 unit was to be charged 486 units but bill was rendered only 116 units and difference comes to 350 units. The above said amount charged by the opposite party is legal and genuine one.

6.         It is well settled that the obligation to have a correct meter on the premises of the consumer is that of the Nigam. No indication has been given in the said bill of complainant as to how the extra amount was added in the  bills. Further, no opportunity was either afforded to the complainant before leying the amount or even after he had approached the opposite party. Therefore, it was not proper to charge the bills at the rate of previous units and too without being heard the complainant. The recovery cannot be made after a lapse of two years if the same has not been shown continuously recoverable in the bills. Thus the act of charge the bill is illegal. Deficiency in service is established on the part of opposite party. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is accepted and the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.4,435/- or adjust in the bill of complainant within a period of one month. Parties will bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced on: 2.1.2015

                                                                             President,

Member                                   District Consumer Disputes                                                                           Redressal Forum, Jind