Haryana

Karnal

CC/201/2015

Soma S/o Piare - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Naresh Kumar

21 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL. 

                                                     Complaint No. 201 of 2015

                                                    Date of instt.28.08.2015

                                                     Date of decision 21.11.2017

 

Soma, aged 50 years son of Sh. Piare, resident of village Uncha Samana, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                                 ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus.

S.D.O. OP Sub Division, UHBVNL, Gharaunda.

 

                                                                      ..…Opposite Party.

 

 Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

Before     Sh. Jagmal Singh……….President.

                Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:   Sh. Naresh Kumar Advocate for the complainant.

                 Sh. B.P. Singh Advocate for opposite party.

                 

       

                (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

 ORDER:

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he was having a domestic electric connection bearing account no. ZDi 8-1247 and he was regularly paying the electricity bills and nothing remains pending. The sanctioned load was 1.000 KW. Opposite party (hereinafter referred as OP) issued a bill dated 29.11.2014 in respect of the abovesaid electric connection, in which the units consumed by the complainant are 5000 units during the period from 10.9.2014 to 10.11.2014 and Rs.36,801/- was shown to be paid in the said bill till 16.12.2014. He has never consumed such high volume of the units, there was apprehension that the electricity meter might have jumped. He moved an application to the OP regarding jumping of the electricity meter. The OP installed a “check” meter on the check meter the units consumed came to 58 units. On the basis of check meter, the OP issued a bill dated 27.1.2015 for 58 units for Rs.38,190/-. OP did not deduct the amount of previous bill dated 29.11.2014 from the bill dated 27.1.2015. He was forced to deposit the bill raised. Finding no other alternative, he paid an amount of Rs.15000/- on 13.02.2015. Thereafter, he requested the OP several times to refund the remaining amount after adjusting the amount on the basis of 58 units for the period from 10.9.2014 to 10.11.2014, but OP did not pay any heed to the request of OP. Then he served a legal notice dated 18.5.2015 upon the OP, but OP has also not correct the bill. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi; maintainability; jurisdiction and concealments of facts. On merits, it has been submitted that the OP issued bill dated 29.11.2014 for an amount of Rs.36801/-. It has been submitted that the bill in question has rightly been sent to the complainant as same is regarding the consumption of electricity made by him, which was earlier block/stored by him in collusion with some official of Nigam. The meter of the complainant never jumped. The report of the check meter clearly reveals that the meter of applicant has never jumped. It is worthwhile to mention here that the meter was installed on 18.4.2012 and up-till 12/2014 the applicant got recorded only 1128 units in three years which clearly shows that he got blocked the reading of his meter. He got recorded the units of his meter. He got recorded the units of his premises only 60-70 per bio monthly 6/2015. The last two bills shows that the consumption of complainant is 800 to 900 units per bio monthly. It has further been submitted that the bill has been rightly and legally sent to the complainant.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 29.2.2016.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Parveen Dahiya Ex.OP1/A and document OP1 and closed the evidence on 12.8.2016.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The admitted fact of the case are that that the complainant has a domestic electric connection bearing account no.ZDi 8-1247 with 1.000 KW load. The bill for the period from 10.9.2014 to 10.11.2014 has been issued on 29.11.2014 by the OP for a sum of Rs.36801/- to be paid on 16.12.2014.

7.             According to complainant, the disputed bill was issued for 5000 units, whereas the complainant has never consumed such high volume of units and the complainant has apprehension that the electricity meter might have jumped. It is further alleged that on the application of complainant, the OP installed a “Check Meter” at the premises of complainant with the already installed meter. According the check meter consumed 58 units and the OP issued a bill dated 27.1.2015 for Rs.38190/- for 58 units and the OP did not deduct the amount of previous bill dated 29.11.2014. The complainant was forced to deposit the entire bill and finding no other alternative the complainant deposited Rs.15000/- on 13.2.2015, whereas the complainant was liable to pay bill of 58 units as per check meter. The complainant made request for refund of remaining amount but the OP did not pay the same.

8.             Whereas according to OP, the report of the check meter clearly revealed that the meter of complainant has never jumped. It is also contended the electric meter in question of the complainant was installed on 18.4.2012 and uptill 12/2014 the complainant got recorded on 1128 units in three years which shows that the complainant got blocked the reading of his meter. It is further contended that the bill for 6/2015 and 8/2015 shows that the consumption was 800 to 900 units per bio monthly. It is also argued that during the check meter, the complainant has knowingly and intentionally used less electricity and the bill in question has been issued rightly.

9.             From the pleading and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant had consumed 1128 units upto 10.9.2014 as is clear from bill Ex.C5. The contention of OP that the meter of the complainant was installed on 18.4.2012 has not been denied by the complainant. In this way the complainant has used electricity for about 27 months. Therefore, the average of 1128 units comes to 40-45 units per month and 80-90 units per bio-monthly. The statement of account of the electric connection of the complainant Ex.OP-1 shows that the bills for 6/2015 and 8/2015  were issued for consumption of 881 units and 576 units, which clearly indicates that the consumption of electricity by complainant is much more than the claim of the complainant. The complainant has placed on the file a document Ex.C-7 which is the report of units consumed by new check meter and old consumer meter for the period from 19.12.2014 to 19.1.2015. According to this document both the meter have consumed 138 units, which clearly indicate that the old consumer meter was alright and the same has not been jumped. The above facts clearly indicates that the complainant had got blocked the reading of his meter in collusion with the meter reader. Moreover, there is no report of the expert that the meter of the complainant was jumped. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations leveled by the complainant. Hence the OP is not found deficienct in any manner.

10.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:21.11.2017

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                       (Anil Sharma)

                            Member