Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 793.
Instituted on : 10.12.2010.
Decided on : 22.05.2015.
Deepak Jindal s/o Sh. Sanwar Mal Aggarwal, resident of H.No.423/3, Ram Nagar, Kath Mandi, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its S.D.O., Sub-Division No.2, Near ITI Circular Road, Rohtak.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Balwan Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Pankaj Kaushik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainants with the averments that complainant is consumer of opposite parties being user and beneficiary of an electric Meter no.L-0246 which is having a domestic connection in the name of Jwala Devi at the complainant’s premises. It is averred that on 04.10.2010 an electricity bill for the month of Aug-Sep 2010 was given to the complainant whereby sundry charges/allowances of Rs.38140/- were added, total units consumed were 554 and the status of this meter was also O.K. It is averred that on 11.10.2010 complainant met with the officials of opposite party for correction of his bill according to actual units consumed and the opposite party corrected the bill and the complainant paid the bill of Rs.2200/- according to actual consumption. It is averred that on 30.10.2010 the complainant was again given a wrong bill for the month of October-November 2010 wherein the sundry charges of Rs.39263/- were also added. It is averred that complainant requested the opposite party to correct the bill but they refused to do the needful. It is averred that the act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite party may kindly be directed to accept the actual consumption bill and restrained to remove the electric meter from the premises of the complainant during the pendency of this complaint and to correct the bill and also to pay compensation on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that it is correct that an electric meter connection No.L-246 was installed in the name of Smt. Jwala Devi with sanctioned load of 4.9 KW. The complainant is not a registered consumer of Nigam but the complainant is a user and beneficiary of the said electric connection. It is averred that the Nigam is entitled to recover the arrears/bill of previous consumer to the present consumer of the same premises under sale circular No.63/07. It is averred that the registered consumer have two electric connections in the same premises. One is in the name of Smt. Jwala Devi bearing connection No.L-0246 and second is in the name of Sh. Jai Kishan bearing no.L-243. Meanwhile Jai Kishan was not depositing his bills and Rs.38140/- was still standing in his name. Therefore, the said meter was closed due to non-payment of bill and the meter of Jwala Devi was of the same premises, therefore, the amount of Jai Kishan was transferred in the account of Jawala Devi bearing No.L-246. It is averred that before issue in the bill a notice was served to Smt. Jawala Devi to deposit the alleged bill but she refused to receive and sign on the copy of notice. Hence the bill of Jai Kishan was transferred in the account of Smt. Jawala Devi. It is averred that the complainant is legally bound to pay the said bill and is not entitled for any relief. As such it is prayed that present complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and affidavit Ex.PW2/A and documents Ex.P4 to Ex.P12 in additional evidence and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and has closed its evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that the meter connection no.1081/0205K-C was in the name of Smt.Jwala Devi and the complainant is user of the same. It is also not disputed that the opposite party issued a bill dated 23.11.2010 whereby an amount of Rs.39263/- was added as arrears. The contention of the complainant is that he was paying the bills regularly as per actual consumption and there was no bill pending against him. On the other hand contention of the opposite party is that there were two electric connections in the same premises i.e. one in the name of Smt. Jwala Devi bearing connection No.L-0246 and second is in the name of Sh. Jai Kishan bearing no.L-243. It is further contended that an amount of Rs.38140/- was standing in the name of Jai Kishan, therefore, the amount of Jai Kishan was transferred in the account of Jawala Devi bearing No.L-246 bearing the same premises. It is contended that the alleged amount has been transferred in the account of Jwala Devi as per the rules and regulations of the Nigam.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that during the pendency of the complaint, complainant moved an application for appointment of L.C. to establish the factual position of both the connections. As per the report of L.C. placed on record as Ex.P4 it was found that meter No.L-246 is installed in H.No.423/33 in the house of Deepak Jindal and meter no.L-243 was installed by the department in old house no.421/33 and New H.No.545/28 and and M.C.R.No.112 in the name of Sh. Jai Kishan Jindal, but house was locked and meter no.L-243 was not traced out in the presence of official of opposite party. The site plan of meter no.L-246 and L-243 is also placed as Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. Photographs Ex.P8 to Ex.P12 are also placed on record. In view of the aforesaid documents it is proved that the meter no.L-246 and L-243 were not found in the same premises. Meter no.L-246 was installed in the house No.423/33 of complainant whereas meter no.L-243 was not traced out as the same was installed in the house of Jai Kishan which was locked. Hence the opposite party has failed to establish the fact that both the meters were in the premises and the complainant is liable to pay the arrears of meter No.L-243 being the same premises. In this regard reliance has also been placed upon the law cited in 2010(3)CLT 531 titled as Shalinder Kumari Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and another whereby Hon’ble State Commission has held that: “No evidence produced by the respondents to prove their version that the appellant ever used the said connection of late ‘M’-No law shown on behalf of the respondent that the amount outstanding against one connection could be added in the bill of another connection-respondent held not entitled to raise demand against the appellant for the outstanding dues of ‘M’.
8. In view of the aforesaid law which is applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that as both the meters were in the different premises and as such the complainant is not liable to pay the arrears of meter no.L-243. As such opposite party is directed to set aside the amount of arrear of meter no.L-243 imposed upon the meter no.L-246 of the complainant and only to charge the bill as per actual consumption. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
22.05.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
