Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 698.

                                                          Instituted on     : 11.12.2017.

                                                          Decided on       : 28.09.2018.

Kalam Singh Nehra s/o Sh. Surat Singh R/o H.No.305, Sector-14, Rohtak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

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

……….Opposite party.

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

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   SMT.SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Ms. Chetna, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant is consumer of opposite party bearing electricity connection no.9153660000. That complainant requested the opposite party for removing the electrical fault in the meter installed at the house of complainant saying that there was no light in one phase of the meter out of 3 phases. That representative of OP visited the house of complainant for checking the same on 13.07.2017, prepared the observation report that meter reading is not visible and removed the meter and sealed in a box to refer the same to M & T Lab. A new meter was also installed on the same date. The meter was checked in lab and OP was directed to refer the meter to its manufacturer but no action was taken by the opposite party and in the month of September 2017, the complainant received an electricity bill of Rs.31688/- for 2124 units. On contacting the OP, the bill was reduced to Rs.20527/-. That the act of OP of calculating the average of 59 days instead of 7 days and imposing the penalty of Rs.6025/- is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OP to adjust a sum of Rs.6025/- alongwith interest, and to pay compensation and litigation  expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party who appeared and filed its written reply and has submitted that the meter of the complainant was faulty and a bill of Rs.31688/- was issued on 18.09.2017. The meter was found smoky. After overhauling, the refundable amount of Rs.11161/- was adjusted and correction was made on the bill and complainant was asked to pay the amount of Rs.20527/-. The amount has already been refunded by the respondent by way of adjustment and nothing is to be refunded to the complainant and there is no fault of the respondent. It is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.  

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and has closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence.

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

5.                          Perusal of sundry charges reports having no.68/391 placed on record as ‘Annexure-B’ itself shows that an amount of Rs.11161/- is refundable towards the complainant by the department. The complainant filed the present complaint after stating that he is entitled for a sum of Rs.6025/- in addition to the amount of Rs.11161/- and the respondent officials wrongly prepared the sundry report. This fact is itself proved by the respondent officials Ms. Mini Sharma, C.A., UHBVNL who appeared at the time of arguments and placed on record copy of sundry charges report having number 167/402 placed on record as ‘Annexure-A’ because this document was prepared by the concerned C.A.. The perusal of this report itself shows that the department paid less amount to the complainant i.e. Rs.5380/-

6.                          After perusal of the relevant documents we come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.5380/- against an amount of Rs.6025/-.  As such, complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.5380/-(Rupees five thousand three hundred eighty only)  and also to pay Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant and adjust the alleged awarded amount in future bills of the complainant failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision till its realization to 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:

28.09.2018.

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

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

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

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Saroj Bala Bohra, Member