Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 456.
Instituted on : 08.08.2017.
Decided on : 15.10.2018.
Satvir Singh s/o Sh. Surajmal R/o H.No.1383 Sector-3, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The UHBVNL through its Manager Director Vidyut Sadan C-16, Sector-6, Panchkula.
- XEN City Op. Divn. UHBVNL. Model Town, Rohtak.
- S.D.O. Op. Sub Divn. No.1, UHBVNL, Rohtak.
- Monu(Thekedar) Kabir Colony, Gohana Railway Line, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
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: Sh.Satvir Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Harish Kumar, Advocate for the opposite party No.1 to 3.
Opposite party No.4 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that meter bearing no.2241104/B111624 UJ is in the name of complainant and opposite party No.4 had been using the electricity because his workers used to live there largely in open space. That a bill of Rs.46567 was cleared on 14.10.2016. But the connection of the meter had been disconnected for non-payment of bill in time. A bill of Rs.57339/- was again sent for the same period. That the meter is located on a pole in an open area and the act of opposite party of showing the premises locked up continuously for more than 20 months is illegal. That complainant does not reside there and opposite party no.4 who is liable for the payment and he is playing fraud with the complainant. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed that the bill no.010312207304 issued on 10.04.2014 or any other bill after making payment on 14.10.2017 be declared wrong, unjustified and illegal & any other order which the Hon’ble Court deems fit be awarded in favour of the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 to 3 in their reply has submitted that complaint regarding deposit of amount by the complainant is a matter of record but it is wrong and denied that nothing remained due against the complainant after payment on 14.10.2016. That the bill has been rightly and legally issued to the complainant and the complainant is liable to pay the same. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought. However notice sent to opposite party No.4 received back with the report of refusal and as such he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.09.2017 of this Forum.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 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. After going through the file and hearing the parties, it is observed that through this complaint the complainant has pleaded that he had deposited an amount of Rs.46567/- on dated 14.10.2016 and cleared the electricity dues pending against him. Thereafter the respondent officials issued a bill to him and demanded again a sum of Rs.57339/- for the period, he had already made the payment and he prayed that the respondent officials should withdraw the alleged electricity dues to the after mentioning arrear amounts. The reply and affidavit were filed by the respondent’s officials. The perusal of the written statement and affidavit itself shows that the respondent officials not submitted any specific answer or reply regarding the facts mentioning in the complaint by the complainant parawise. Moreover these reply and affidavit are simply on denial basis. No facts has been mentioned that why this amount has been raised by the respondent officials again and issued wrong bills to the complainant. One document is placed on record on dated 04.07.2018 and another permanent disconnection order dated 12.05.2017 was also placed on record on dated 10.08.2018. The perusal of copy of ledger itself shows that a new reading has been mentioned as 22058 for the month of 3/17 and prior to that from 11/15 to 2/17 the premises was mentioned as locked. It is very strange that a permanent disconnection order was issued on dated 12.05.2017 and on that day also the final readings are mentioned as 22058. After perusal of documents it reveals that when the premises was locked for a long period from 11/15 to 12/16 how these readings are mentioned in the ledger or in the meter. Moreover when the reading is mentioned as 22058 on dated 3/17 then these readings are same on dated 12.05.2017, Somehow there is defect in the meter or any other reason that the officials have wrongly recorded the reading and true facts have not been mentioned in the written statement or in the documents placed on record by the respondent officials.
6. In view of the above discussion, complaint is dispose of with direction to the opposite party No.1 to 3 not to charge any bill for the period 11/15 to 12/16 and also not to charge any amount against reading mentioned in PDCO i.e. 22058 from the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
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:
15.10.2018.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
…………………………………
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
