Haryana

StateCommission

A/292/2016

SUMIT KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

MADAN JASSAL

20 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

Appeal No.292 of 2016

Date of the Institution:07.04.2016

Date of Decision: 20.10.2016

 

Sumit Kumar S/o Sh. Surender, resident of village Jatheri, Tehsil and District-Sonepat.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

 

S.D.O, U.H.B.V.N.L, Rai, District-Sonepat.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Madan Jassal, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                    Mrs. Alka Joshi, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      Sumit Kumar, Appellant is in appeal against the Order dated 01.03.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby his complaint for  correction of the bill against UHBVNL has been dismissed as he failed to prove any deficiency in service.

2.      In brief, the complainant is consumer of the Respondent vide account No.RS12-1749-M. He received the electricity bill No.736 for an amount of Rs.54285/- which according to him was excessive. On 07.07.2015, the complainant filed application before the respondent that his meter had got burnt. The OP marked the same to Shri Rajmal for report. Shri  Rajmal reported that the meter was already burnt, and that is why, the respondent instead of changing the burnt meter, issued the electricity bill to the complainant. This according to the complainant amounted to grave deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

3.      Contesting the complaint the OPs pleaded that an amount of Rs.40717/- was due against the complainant as the old meter reading of the complainant was 1528 and new reading of the meter wass 7732 on 22.06.2015. This way, the reading of the meter of the complainant came to 6204 and bill for Rs.54288/- was rightly issued to the complainant.  Out of this amount he has deposited Rs.13571/- with the respondent as per order of the Forum and the bill issued to the complainant was correct. The learned District Forum agreeing with the stand taken by the OP dismissed the complaint vide order dated 01.03.2016.

4.      Against the impugned order dated 01.03.2016, the complainant has filed appeal before us reiterating the same factual submissions and the grievances as raised by him before the District Forum.

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record. The perusal of the record, establishes that the old meter reading was 1528 and the new reading was 7732 on 22.06.2015. Thus 6204 units were consumed by the complainant for which a bill of Rs.54288/- inclusive of SOP charges, FSA Charges and ED charges was sent to the complainant. Further, the complainant never approached the OP regarding the burnt meter as alleged by him. Moreover, the report of Sh. Rajmal fully corroborates that the meter was totally burnt and nothing was readable thereon. The learned District Forum permitted the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.13,571/- as an intirm measure to avoid disconnection of the meter. We fully accept the factual position and agree with the conclusions arrived at by the learned District Forum. Consequently, we have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal by upholding the order of the learned District Forum.

 

October 20th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

R.K.