Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 116.
Instituted on : 08.03.2019.
Decided on : 23.02.2021.
Om Parkash Mittal Advocate, age 63 years R/o 356/35 Aggarsain Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. OP City Division No.2. through its S.D.O.Rohtak.
- X.E.N. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.. OP City Division No.2, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Jitender Kumar SDO for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is consumer of opposite parties having connection bearing a/c No.9228360000. The opposite parties served a letter bearing memo No.22 dated 24.09.2018 intimating that a sum of Rs.31000/- was assessed being your account was overhauled since 2/2015 to 12/2016. In reference of the demand, the complainant requested for detail of the impugned amount by registered letter dated 13.11.2018 but the respondents did not bother to give any detail or any reply. Now the respondents issued an electricity bill dated 25.02.2019 amounting to Rs.33649/- wherein current cycle charges is shown Rs.2648/- and sundry charges is Rs.31000/-. The complainant is ready to make payment of current charges Rs.2648/- but the opposite parties are illegally demanding Rs.31000/- as sundry charges and are threatening to disconnect the electricity supply. Complainant requested the opposite parties to withdraw the aforesaid illegal demand and requested not to affect any recovery but in vain. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to set aside the impugned recovery of Rs.31000/- and also to pay a compensation of Rs.10000/- to the complainant for harassment and mental suffering.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that the amount of Rs.31000/- has been rightly charged because during the billing period Feb. 2015 to Dec. 2016 bill rendered to the consumer under MMC being very low consumption recorded, comparatively to the previous billing period of 2/2017 to 08/2018. During that period the meter remained defective. The alleged amount is legally chargeable by the Nigam and the complainant is liable to pay the same. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be matter of record and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and has closed his evidence on dated 22.08.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties made a statement that reply already filed on their behalf be also read as affidavit, tendered document Ex.R1 and closed their evidence on dated 11.02.2020.
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, the respondent officials issued a notice dated 24.09.2018 to the complainant for depositing an amount of Rs.31000/- as sundry charges which is Ex.P1. In reply to the same, the complainant wrote a letter to the concerned SDO and through this letter, he deposed that the account of the complainant was wrongly overhauled and this amount has been demanded after a lapse of 21 months and the same is highly objectionable. The complainant demanded the detail of amount illegally chargeable from the complainant. The respondents have not replied this letter of the complainant. In the present complaint, the respondent officials filed their reply and also filed a document i.e. internal audit half margin report dated 17.09.2018. At the time of arguments, the complainant also placed on record bills Annexure-JN1 to Annexure-JN14.
6. We have minutely perused the half margin report prepared by the internal audit department of the respondent officials. As per this report the account of the complainant was overhauled from the period 02/2015 to 12/2016 after considering the base for the period 2/2017 to 08/2018. As per this report, the respondent officials have less charged for the period 02/2015 to 12/2016 because the meter of the complainant was defective during this period and the department had only charged MMC from the complainant. In this way, SDO present in Commission has stated that the department has rightly overhauled the account of the complainant and rightly charged an amount of Rs.31000/- in the bill dated 21.02.2019. At the time of arguments, 14 previous bills have been placed on record by the complainant as Annexure-JN1 to Annexure JN-14. The perusal of these bills shows that the status of the meter of the complainant was OK during this period i.e. 02/2015 to 12/2016. After considering all the documents placed on record by both the parties we came to the conclusion that the respondent officials have wrongly charged an amount of Rs.31000/-. Moreover the respondent officials failed to place on record any report before this Commission to prove that the meter of the complainant was defective during this period. Simply in reply it has been pleaded that the meter of the complainant was found defective. Moreover in half margin report the consumed units have been mentioned. Meaning thereby the meter of the complainant was not defective. Hence the opposite parties have wrongly charged an amount of Rs.31000/- from the complainant as advised by the interal audit department after preparing the half margin report and the same is false.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to set aside the impugned recovery of Rs.31000/- imposed upon the complainant as sundry charges and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant and also to adjust the alleged amount of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) in the future bills of the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
8. 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:
23.02.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
