Haryana

Karnal

05/2009

Satpal S/o Puran Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Jaspal Singh

19 Nov 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                                Complaint No.  5 of 2009

                                                                Date of instt.6.01.2009                                                                                            Date of decision:13.3.2015

 

Satpal son of Shri Puran Chand resident of House No.938, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                      ………..Complainant.

                             Versus

 

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

 

2.SDO, OP Sub Urban Sub Division, UHBVNL, Karnal.

                                                ……… Opposite Parties.

 

                   Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before            Sh.Subhash Goyal……. President.

                        Smt.Shashi Sharma….Member.

                       

 

 Present        Sh.Jaspal Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh.K.K.Deswal Advocate for the Ops.

 

ORDER:        

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that the complainant had applied for a domestic electricity connection  with a load of 9.7KW which was sanctioned and the connection was issued vide account No. LS.28/5930.H.  It was also alleged that upto the year 2003, there was no dispute regarding the load and without any application of the complainant, the Ops extended the load from 9.7KW to 27.5 KW.  On 6.2.2002 the meter installed at the premises of the complainant was burnt and an application was moved by the complainant and upon checking load of the complainant was found 12.250 KW.  Thereafter in the month of April, 2008, the meter installed at the premises of the complainant became defective.  The complainant has alleged that now a bill of Rs.54,754/ has been issued by the Ops illegally and the same has not been rectified despite the requests made by the complainant which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and has prayed that the Ops be directed to rectify the said bill and has also sought compensation for the harassment caused to him alongwith litigation expenses. He has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contents of the complaint.

 

2.       On notice the Ops appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint was not legally maintainable; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and to try the present complaint.

 

                   On merits, it was contended that the amount which has been received in excess has been adjusted into the account of the complainant which was to the tune of Rs.33007/ and the complainant has been duly intimated in this regard.

 

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

4.                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence  on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that  the complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops on the  grounds that Ops have issued a bill in the sum of Rs.54754/ in an illegal  manner and has threatened to disconnect the electricity supply in an illegal  manner which amounts to deficiency in services.

 

                   It was also argued that Ops were entitled to take average consumption of the six months preceding the burning of the meter in terms of sales circular No. U.6/2007 whereas the Ops have taken average of succeeding six months.

 

                   However, as per contention of the Ops bill has rightly been issued and the average of succeeding  six months have rightly been taken at the time of over hauling of the account of the complainant in terms of sales circular No. U.6/2007.

 

5.                However, after going through the evidence and circumstances of the case, the dispute  is as to whether the Ops  were  entitled to charge on the basis of average consumption of preceding six months or succeeding six months  in case of burning of the meter. The Sales circular lU.6/2007 reads as under:

 

          a)       The consumer shall be billed on the basis of consumption of same month of the preceding year.

          b)       In case the same is not available, the consumer shall be billed on the basis of average of last six months

          c)     

          d)     

         

                   In view of  the sales circular No.U.6/2007 the Ops were entitled to charge on the basis of average of last six months i.e. of preceding six months prior to defective meter.

 

                    Therefore, charging of consumption on the basis of average of six months after installation of new meter , succeeding the installation of six months is deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and Ops were required  to issue the bill on the basis of consumption of six months preceding the date of  burning/defective meter.

 

6.                Therefore, as a result of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to issue the bill of the complainant on the basis of average consumption of six months preceding the date of burning of the meter. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.2200/ on account of harassment caused to him and for the legal fee and litigation expenses. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly land the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 13.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Present         Sh.Jaspal Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.K.K.Deswal Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 13.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              Subhash Goyal

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma

                             Member.