Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                    Complaint No. : 07.

                                                                   Instituted on     : 03.01.2019.

                                                                   Decided on       : 24.11.2021.

Anil Kumar, aged 48 years, R/o H. No.941/28, Bharat Colony, Rohtak.

                                                                   ...........Complainant.

                                                Vs.

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.(UHBVNL), Rohtak through SDO, Sub-Divn. No.1, Rohtak.

……….Opposite party

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

Present:       Shri Naresh Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Sandeep Kaushik, Advocate for the opposite party.  

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case are that complainant is having electricity connection bearing no.4258025818 and electricity meter bearing no.7387101 with sanctioned load of 3.0 KW has been installed at the premises of the complainant and he has been paying the bills regularly. The complainant received the electricity bill issued by respondent for the period 4.10.2018 to 11.12.2018 and he was surprised and shocked to see that he has been asked by the respondent to pay the bill of Rs.1,00,166/- for the consumption of 702 units(new reading 19208 units, old reading 18506 units). After receiving the alleged bill, the complainant approached the office of respondents and requested them to check and correct the bill as per actual consumption and issue the amended bill as per consumption of complainant. The officials of respondent assured the complainant that the fresh bill will be issued as per his consumption but later on they have refused to correct the bill and directed the complainant to deposit the amount of the said bill and threatened to disconnect the electricity connection if he did not pay the electricity bill. The complainant requested the respondent to amend the impugned electricity bill and issue the bill after making necessary correction but the request of the complainant was not acceded by the respondent. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that the respondent be restrained from recovering the impugned amount of Rs.1,00,166/- in furtherance of above mentioned impugned bill from the complainant in any manner and the same be declared as illegal, null and void, against the principles of natural  justice and the complainant is not liable to pay the same and respondent be also directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.25,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that due to technical error, the bill of the complainant was issued for minimum charges from October, 2015 to August, 2018. After being recording correct reading of electricity consumed, a bill of Rs.1,10,620/- was issued on which no interest has been charged from the complainant. It was in the knowledge of complainant that he had been paying the minimum charges of electricity, whereas the energy consumed was much more. Further, a bill of Rs.1,03,170/- upto the period December dated 11.12.2018 has been issued, which is still pending. The complainant had deposited Rs.11548/- during this period, hence now outstanding amount of Rs.99071/- is due against the complainant upto August, 2018, out of which the complainant deposited a certain amount by the order of this Commission and rest of the amount is still to be deposited by the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and respondent has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, and document Ex.C1 and has closed his evidence on dated 21.11.2019. Thereafter, ld. Counsel for the complainant has also tendered documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 into his additional evidence and has closed his evidence on dated 10.11.2021. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW/A and has closed his evidence on dated 20.8.2021.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                In the present case respondent has not placed on record any letter/document to prove the fact that complainant used higher electricity consumption during the period October 2015 to August 2018. It is an admitted fact in the affidavit filed by the concerned SDO as Ex.RW1/A that they have charged minimum electricity charges for bimonthly bills from the complainant and they have correct the reading of electricity consumption of the bills of the complainant  from October 2015 to August 2018 and after that they have charged an amount of Rs.110620/-. He has further submitted that complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.11548/- and an amount of Rs.99071/- is still outstanding against the complainant upto August 2018. To prove this fact respondent has not placed on record any letter, sundry report or ledger before this Commission that actually the complainant has consumed so much electricity energy and they have rightly charged the consumption bill from the complainant. As per Ex.C1 for the period 04.10.2018 to 11.12.2018, the units consumed are shown as 702 and the bill is issued for Rs.103070/- including arrear charges and the current consumption bill etc. The perusal of the bill itself shows that there was no such higher consumption as charged by the opposite parties through sundry charges for the previous period w.e.f. October 2015 to August 2018. As such the bill issued by the opposite party for the period October 2015 to August 2018 is illegal and opposite party is not entitled to claim the same from the complainant.

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party not to charge the arrears of Rs.99077/- imposed vide bill dated 15.12.2018 and further not to charge any surcharge etc. from the complainant. Opposite party is further directed to refund the amount already paid by the complainant vide order dated 23.01.2019 of this Commission against the alleged amount of Rs.99077/- to the complainant and also to pay Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision and the alleged awarded amount shall be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant.

7.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.          File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

24.11.2021.                                               

                                                          .....................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.