Haryana

Karnal

CC/398/2019

Rajbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijali Vitran Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Anshul Chaudhary

28 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 398 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.09.07.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:28.02.2022

 

Rajbir Singh son of Shri Prem Singh, resident of village Gogripur, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

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

 

2.     The Superintending Engineer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sub-Urban Division no.II, Karnal.

 

3.     The SDO Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Urban Division no.II, Jundla, District Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Anshul Chaudhary, counsel for complainant.

Shri Bhanu Partap Singh, counsel for OPS.

              

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is consumer of OPs and having a Domestic Electricity connection bearing account no.JD43-3147-X (old account no.47234). Complainant is paying the electricity charges regularly. The meter reader has recorded bogus reading of the bills for the months of 12/2017, 2/2018, 4/2018, 6/2018, 8/2018, 10/2018 and 2/2019 as 77, 150, 77, 100, 101, 295, 5 and 933 units respectively. It is pertinent to mention here that the officials of the OPs also issued the bills to one Vineet Maan pertaining to account no.JD43-3147-X, old 47234.  Now complainant has received a bill of Rs.7420/- paid upto 25.06.2019, whereas in that bill the consumption of units has been shown as “Zero”. After receiving the said bill, complainant requested to the OPs to explain how the OPs have demanded the aforesaid amount but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. The complainant has received the said bogus bill for the month of 4/2018 to 12/2018. The said amount has already been paid by the complainant.  Complainant moved applications before the OPs dated 25.02.2019 and 21.05.2019, requesting thereby that SDO and Superintendent Engineering, be advised that the units charged from 12/2017, 2/2019 be got divided into the bills of the period and charges worked out as per respective tariff rates and next bill be got issued after adjusting the irrelevant payment made by him. It is further averred that the meter reader of the OPs recorded the bogus reading, and due to the illegal act and conduct of the OPs complainant suffered mental agony pain and suffering and also loss the reputation in village society because the ZERO reading used to give wrong message to the public at large and as such the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony, pain and sufferings etc.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction and suppression of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant in collusion with the meter reader got blocked the reading of its meter and got filled the reading as per his convenience and when the actual reading of the meter of the complainant came into the notice of the officials of the OPs, then the account of complainant has been overhauled as per the consumption of the electricity. It is further pleaded that bill of Rs.7420/- was sent then at that time there was reading consumed was “Zero” but the bill was sent regarding the previous balance. The bill of Rs.7420/- has been issued in August, 2019 which is regarding the actual consumption which is 1149 units. Hence the bill in question has been rightly and legally issued to the complainant. It is further pleaded that as and when complainant visited the office of OPs then he was disclosed about the entire detail of the amount due but he did not bothered to pay the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, application to OP dated 25.04.2019 Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 19.12.2019 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunil Kumar C.A. Ex.OP1/A, detail of DS connection Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 23.02.2021 by suffering separate statement.

We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.           

7.             Learned counsel for complainant argued that complainant is holder of domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No.JD43-3147-X, Old 47234. The meter reader has recorded bogus reading of the bills for the months of 4/18 to 12/18. Complainant has received a bill of Rs.7420/- whereas in that bill the consumption of units have been shown as “zero”. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs for correction of the said bill but OPs did not pay any heed to his request. He further argued that the complainant also moved applications dated 25.02.2019 and 21.05.2019 for correction of the abovesaid bill but it also did not yield any result. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per-contra, learned counsel for OPs argued that complainant in collusion with the meter reader got blocked the reading of its meter and got filled the reading as per his convenience and when the actual reading of the meter of the complainant came into the notice of the official of the OPs, then the account of the complainant had been overhauled as per the consumption of the electricity. He further argued that bill amounting to Rs.7440/- was sent regarding the average reading. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

9.             Admittedly, the complainant is a holder of domestic electricity connection and OPs issued the electricity bills regularly to the complainant. 

10.           The OPs have submitted that the complainant in collusion with the meter reader got blocked the reading of his meter and that is why the actual reading could not be noted and when the account of the complainant got overhauled as per the consumption, then the electricity bill was sent to him. 

11.           The question which is to be decided is that whether the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.7440/- to the OPs or not?

12.           The plea raised by the OPs is that the complainant in collusion with the meter reader has blocked the meter and that is why the actual reading of the meter installed at the premises of the complainant could not be recorded and when the connection of the complainant was overhauled and then the bill amounting to Rs.7440/- was issued to him on the basis of average reading. The onus to prove this plea was lies upon the OPs. In order to prove its plea, neither the OPs have placed even a single document nor examined any witness, to prove that the meter reader in collusion with the complainant had not recorded actual reading. Furthermore, if there is any fault on the part of meter reader, then it were the OPs, who were responsible for the act of their officials instead of complainant. The OPs cannot blame the complainant for the wrong act done by their official. Hence, the plea taken by the OPs is not tenable in the eyes of law and has no force at all. 

13.           Furthermore, the written version filed by the OPs is only signed by the counsel, though the signatures of the authorized signatories of the OPs are not there. As per order 6 Rule 14 CPC, every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader. Order 6 Rule 14 CPC is reproduced as under:-

14. Pleading to be signed:- 

Every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any):

Provided that where a party pleading is, by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorized by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf.  

 

                Since the written version has not been signed by the party itself, the written version as well as evidence of OPs cannot be considered.

14.           On the other hand, the complainant has proved his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence and the evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. Hence, he is entitled for an amount of Rs.7440/-, paid to the OPs, alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. 

15.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.7440/- or to adjust the same in future bills of the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.3300/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and towards the litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:28.02.2022

 

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                                Member