Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1236/2010

Smt.Sarabjeet Kaur w/o Sh.Dara Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Jaiswal

04 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 1236 of 2010.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 24.12.2010

                                                                                    Date of decision: 4.11.2015

Smt. Sarabjeet Kaur w/o Sh. Dara Singh age 65 years, resident of House No. 554, Friends Colony, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                           …Complainant.

 

                                    Versus

 

1. U.H.B.V.N.Ltd. through its Chairman, Panchkula.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, U.H.B.V.N.Ltd. Industrial Area, Yamuna Nagar.
3. The Executive Engineer, U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                               ..Opposite parties.  

 

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Atul Jaiswal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. P.K.Verma, Advocate, for OPs.   

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Smt. Sarabjeet Kaur has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to correct the disputed bills dated 24.8.2010 and 25.10.2010 and further be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint as alleged by the complainant are that the complainant is having an electricity connection bearing No. YA15/0034Y-V installed at her house situated at House No. 554, Friends Colony, Yamuna Nagar and depositing the bills regularly. Previously the meter reading for electric consumption was 1500 to 2000 units for two months, but in the month of June 2010, the OP changed the meter of the complainant on the request of complainant as it was very fast and after change of meter the reading recorded for first two months i.e. for 22.6.2010 to 22.8.2010 was recorded 1120 units as shown in the bill No. 2522 dated 24.8.2010 ( Annexure C-1). Subsequently the meter reading shown by the OP in the next bill No. 2530 dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure C-2) in which unit consumed has been shown as 13701 which is totally wrong as in the next two months the unit consumed shown cannot be possible. It shows that the meter installed by the Op is a faulty one. In the bill dated 24.8.2010 and  25.10.2010 the OP had arbitrarily and intentionally has shown arrears Rs. 61044/- and sundry charges Rs. 22,910 and MDI penalty Rs. 4793/- and asked the complainant to pay Rs. 79,160/- illegally and in the previous bill dated 24.8.2010 the electricity duty are shown as Rs. 4323/- and arrears shown as Rs. 4793.52 and sundry charges shown asRs. 16,072/- and MDI Penalty shown as Rs. 4793.52. The complainant approached the OPs many times and requested to correct the said bills and check the meter but all in vain. The OPs did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and asked the complainant to pay the bill amount otherwise they will disconnect the electricity connection. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objection such as complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint and on merit it has been mentioned that the sanctioned load of the complainant is 5.9 KW. The true facts are that the meter of the complainant was changed in the month of May 2010 as the MCO was not entered in the computer and the bills for the month of June 2010 to August 2010 were sent on average basis. The account of the complainant was adjusted in the month of October 2010. The meter of the complainant is O.K. There is no fault in the meter and detail of bill is attached as Annexure R-1. The bills have been sent to the complainant as per actual consumption of electricity. The OPs are ready to get the meter checked from M & T Lab or by installing a check meter at the premises of complainant. The bills dated 24.8.2010 and 25.10.2010 are correct and there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

4.                     To prove the case, complainant’s counsel has tendered affidavit of Smt. Sarabjeet Kaur as Annexure CX and document such as Photo copy of bill dated 24.8.2010 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of bill dated 25.10.2010 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of bill dated 26.4.2009 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of bill dated 24.8.2009 as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of bill dated 26.6.2010 as Annexure C-5.  

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties tendered an affidavit of Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Division Industrial Area, UHBVNL, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure RX and and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

7.                     The only plea of the complainant is that bill dated 24.8.2010 and 25.10.2010 of huge amount has been issued by the OPs  which are arbitrarily and intentionally and liable to be quashed.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs argued that the meter of the complainant was changed on the request of the complainant in the month of May 2010 as the MCO was not entered in the computer and the bills for the month of June 2010 to August 2010 were sent to the complainant on the average basis. The account of the complainant was adjusted in the month of October 2010. The meter of the complainant is O.K. as there was no fault in the meter.

9.                     We have perused the Annexure R-1 account statement of the complainant filed by the OPs with his written statement, it is evident that the bill for the month of 2/2010 and 4/2010 were issued on average basis charging unit of 1120 for each bill and for the month of 6/2010 consumed units have been shown as 2239 and in the month of 8/2010 again unit consumed has been shown as 1120 on average basis but in the month of 10/2010 consumed units have been shown as 13701 by considering old reading 6 and new reading 13707 and on this account an amount of Rs. 79160/- has been levied against the complainant. It is the version of the OPs that the meter of the complainant was changed in the month of May 2010 but the MCO was not entered in the computer and due to that the bill for the period from 6/2010 to 8/2010 was sent on average basis and the account of the complainant was adjusted in the month of October 2010. However, from the perusal of this account statement, it is not clear that unit consumed on average basis has been adjusted or not at the time of adjusting the account of the complainant in the month of 10/2010. It is not the case of the Ops that the account of the complainant has been overhauled after issuance of MCO in the month of May 2010 and all the previous units and amounts charged has been adjusted. In reply, the OPs has only mentioned that the bill for the month of 8/2010 and 10/2010 has been sent on actual consumption. Hence, the arguments advanced by the counsel for the OPs is not tenable to our mind. In the absence of any documentary evidence regarding overhauling the account of complainant we cannot hold that the bills sent for the month of 8/2010 and 10/2010 are correct bills.

                        In the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs as the account of the complainant has not been overhauled by the OPs. Hence, we direct the OPs to overhaul the account of the complainant on the basis of consumption of six (6) months of new electric meter installed in the month of May 2010 in the premises of complainant for the previous period for which the bills have been charged on minimum basis/average basis. After overhauling the account of the complainant for the previous period, if any amount becomes due towards the complainant, the same be recovered from her as per rules of the Nigam and if any amount becomes due towards the OPs the same be adjusted in her account. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced: 4.11.2015.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                                     (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                                        MEMBER