Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 18.
Instituted on : 15.01.2015.
Decided on : 25.07.2017.
Romesh Vig s/o Sita Ram Vig, Residence VIG House No.940/22, Sonepat Road Near Jagmohan Motors, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through its M.D., service effected through SDO Sub Division No.1, Rohtak.
- S.D.O.(OP)Sub Division No.1 UHBVNL, Office at Power House Model Town Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sameer Gambhir, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Ajay Gandhi, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that complainant is consumer of opposites party vide electricity connection No.R41B0510636H and the said electricity connection is domestic one. It is averred that complainant is paying the bills regularly. It is averred the bills are being issued to the complainant on average basis as the meter was not showing the previous and current reading. Now the opposite party has supplied the electricity bill of Rs.366819/- dated 12.12.2014 and the meter reading of the said bill is shown old as 27000 and new as 76570 and unit consumed as 49570. It is averred that the alleged reading is wrong as the complainant is paying the bill on average basis for more than one year. It is averred that complainant has paid the electricity bills amounting to Rs.10000/- to Rs.11000/- on each and every bills of the said domestic connection on average basis. It is averred that complainant visited the office of opposite parties for clarification of the said electricity bill but the officials of opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Hence this complaint with prayer to direct the opposite party to withdraw the alleged bill and also to pay compensation of Rs.100000/- on account of financial loss, mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement submitting therein that the complainant has not represented the true facts before the Hon’ble Forum and has concealed the real facts. It is averred that there exists two number meters in the premises of complainant i.e. one meter No.D-705 exist in the name of Ramesh Vig and account No.D-1240 exist in the name of Smt. Poonam Vig. The meter No.D-705 got defected in the month of 6/2010 and MCO of account No. D-705 was issued vide MCO No.84/432 dated 14.05.2012. The MCO was affected on 14.05.2012. Due to clerical mistake the MCO of meter Account no.D-705 was entered in account No.D-1240 vide SC & AR No.71/360(T) 365330. As such both the meter readings got defective in both the cases. The readings of meter No.D-1240 was already not taken due to one or another reasons. Being both the meters fixed side by side and the number of account was wrongly mentioned in the record. New meter was installed in place of defective meter. The new meter was giving correct readings, but due to mentioning of wrong account number the bill was not properly issued. Average billing was done on meter No.D-705 till January 2014, whereas actual consumption was less. The complainant has applied in the office of opposite parties to get his bill reduced. At that time whole matter came into the notice and accordingly bill was corrected and an amount of Rs.164000/- was reduced and refunded. But on verification of actual position on site and verification by J.E.Incharge, bill of account No.D-1240 was corrected and amount of Rs.164500/- was found refunded/adjusted vide SC & AR No.70/360. The amount already charged in bills was reduced and difference of billing amount was charged. The amount charged from the complainant is for both the electricity accounts and same has already been adjusted. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.C1 to Ex.C18 and evidence of complainant was closed was closed by order dated 24.01.2017 of this Forum. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard the 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 opposite party had issued a bill Ex.C1 of Rs.366819/- for the units consumed 49570 on account of less billing. The contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the alleged bill issued by the opposite parties is illegal and is for such a huge units which were never consumed by the complainant and earlier also the complainant was paying the bills for an amount of Rs.10000/- to Rs.11000/- per month. To prove his case complainant has placed on record copy of bills Ex.C2 to Ex.C18. On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite party is that complainant is having two meters in his premises bearing no.D-705 in his name and No.D-1240 in the name of his wife and that due to clerical mistake the MCO of meter no.D-705 was done in account no.D-1240 but lateron after coming to know the clerical mistake, the same was corrected and the amount already charged was reduced and difference of billing amount was charged. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the bills produced on file, the unit per month of complainant’s connection was only upto Rs.11000/- but the charging of bill for 49570/- units is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is observed that opposite parties shall overhaul the account of complainant and shall issue a fresh bill on average basis for the disputed period and shall also adjust the amount of bill paid by the complainant vide order dated 16.01.2015 of this Forum. Opposite parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
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:
25.07.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
………………………………..
Ved Pal, Member
