Haryana

Karnal

CC/399/2019

Vineet Mann - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Anshul Chaudhary

02 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No.399 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt. 09.07.2019

                                                        Date of decision 02.03.2021

 

Vineet Mann son of Shri Attar Singh resident of village Goripur, 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 S.D.O. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. OP Sub-Urban Division no.II Jundla, District Karnal.

    …..Opposite Parties.

 

      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.       

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present: Shri Anshul Chaudhary counsel for complainant.

                Shri Yashbir Singh counsel for opposite parties..

               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is consumer of opposite parties (hereinafter referred as to OPs) and having a Domestic Electricity Connection bearing account no.JD43-3147-X, Old 47234. Complainant paying the electricity bills regularly. After receiving the aforesaid bill the complainant approached to the OPs and requested to explain how they have demanded the aforesaid amount of Rs.13,202/- whereas in that bill the consumption of units have been shown as “Zero” but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant has received the bogus bills for the month of 4/2018 to 12/2018 of Rs.13,202/- and the said amount has already been paid by the complainant.  Complainant moved applications dated 25.02.2019 and 21.05.2019 to the OPs with regard to 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 alleged that the meter reader of the OPs recorded the bogus reading and due to the illegal act and conduct of the OPs, complainant suffered great mental pain and agony, harassment and loss the reputation in the village society because the ZERO reading used to gave 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.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi: cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the 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 OPs then the account of the complainant has been overhauled as per the consumption of the electricity. It is further pleaded that bill of Rs.13,202/- was sent then at that time there was reading consumed was “zero” but the bill was sent regarding the average previous balance. It is further pleaded that in February, 2019 there was bill of Rs.21186/- and out of this amount an amount of Rs.10000/- were paid by the complainant and after deducting that amount an amount of Rs.12067/- remained balance towards him and after that he has not deposited the balance amount hence the bill in question has been rightly sent to the complainant. The bill of Rs.13,202/- has been issued in August, 2019 which is regarding the actual consumption which is 1149 units. Hence the bill in question has rightly and legally issued to the complainant. It is further pleaded that when complainant visited the office of OPs then they disclosed about the entire detail of the amount but complainant did not bother to pay the same and filed the present false complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and application dated 25.04.2019 to Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum UHBVN Ltd. Ex.C2 alongwith copies of bills and closed the evidence on 04.12.2019, vide his separate statement.

4.             On the other hand OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunil Dass C.A. Ex.DW1/A and statement of account Ex.DW1 and closed the evidence on 04.12.2020, vide separate statement.

5.             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.             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 as 90, 76, 80, 80 and 128 units respectively and in the same manner, the officials of the OPs issued the bills to one Rajbir Singh.  Complainant has received a bill wherein the OPs demanded Rs.13,202/- whereas in that bill the consumption of units have been shown as “zero”. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs and requested to explain how they have demanded the said amount but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. He further argued that an amount of Rs.13,202/- has already been paid by the complainant. He further argued that the complainant moved applications dated 25.02.2019 and 21.05.2019, to the OPs requesting that SDO and S.E. to be advised that the units charged from 12/2017, 2/2019 to 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. Finding no other alternative, complainant has filed the present complaint with a prayer to allow the same. 

7.             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 has been overhauled as per the consumption of the electricity. He further argued that bill amounting to Rs.13,202/- was sent regarding the average reading. He further argued that in February 2019, there was bill of Rs.21,186/- and out that, an amount of Rs.10,000/- were paid and an amount of Rs.12,067/- remained balance hence, the bill to the tune of Rs.13,202/- was rightly issued in August 2019. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

9.             Admittedly, the complainant is a holder of domestic electricity connection and OPs issued the 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 over hauled as per the consumption, then the actual 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.13,202/- 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 over hauled and then the bill amounting to Rs.13,202/- was issued to him on the basis of average reading. Thus onus to prove this plea was upon the OPs. In order to prove its plea, neither the OPs have placed even a single document nor examined any witness who can depose 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 is the OPs themselves who are responsible for the act of their officials instead of blaming 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.13,202/-, which he has 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.13,202/- or to adjust the same in future bills of the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5500/- 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:02.03.2021

 

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)              (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                           Member