Haryana

Panchkula

CC/291/2021

TRILOCHAN NATH SHARMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

25 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	291 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	07.07.2021
Date of Decision	:	25.11.2022

 

 

Trilochan Nath Sharma, aged 80 years, son of Late Shri Arjun Ram Sharma, resident of House No.512, Sector-9, Panchkula.

 

                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

2.     Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Sub-Divisional Officer,(operational), Sub-Division Madanpur, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula.

3.     Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Executive Engineer/ Operation Division, Madanpur, Tehsil and District Panchkula.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Complainant.

                        Ms. Alka Joshi, Advocate, for OPs.

                       

                                        ORDER

 

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.              The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had obtained a Tubewell connection in his name over the land situated at village Jaswant Garh, Tehsil and District Panchkula bearing A/c No.7872541000(old no.A26KA010401). The complainant since the date of installation of the said tubewell connection making the regular payment of the  bills raised by the OPs from time to time without any default on time, as per consumption. It is stated that he received a electricity bill no.SB21F2400176CMP2983 dated 24.06.2021 for the period of 30.04.2020 to 24.06.2021 for Rs.1,761/- and due date of the said bill was 05.07.2021. Accordingly, the complainant visited the OP No.2 for deposit of the bill on 01.07.2021, but the officials concerned present there refused to receive the amount of Rs.1,761/- & directed the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.2,462/- inspite of the fact that the bill amount was Rs.1,761/-. He raised objection over the same and the officials misbehaved with the complainant and directed to deposit the demanded amount. The complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.2462/- under protest with the OPs.   Due to act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua the complaint is not maintainable being frivolous and false and no locus standi. It is stated that the complainant received a Electricity Bill No.SB21F240017 6CMP2983 dated 24.6.2021 for the period of 30.04.2020 to 24.06.2021 for Rs.1,761/- and due date of the said bill was 05.07.2021 issued by the OPs after making previous adjustment. Moreover, there is no provisional bill like thing in the department of Ops, when the same was issued after calculating the consumption of units. It is stated that the provisional bill was issued earlier and when the complainant had gone to deposit the OPs raised the actual bill. It is incorrect that the complainant had not raised any objection on the demand of Rs.701/- extra and the said amount was deposited by the complainant under protest. On merits, pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 to 3 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.             To prove the case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 & C-2 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops No.1 to 3 has tendered affidavit Annexure R/A along with documents Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the complainant and Ops No. 1 to 3 and gone through the entire record available on file, carefully and minutely.

5.             During arguments, the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint as also the affidavit Annexure C-A contended that there was no justification on the part of OPs to charge  a sum of Rs. 701/- in excess of the demand raised  vide electric bill dated 24.06.2021(Annexure C-1)amounting to Rs.1,761/-. It is contended that he was compelled to deposit a sum of Rs.2,462/- vide receipt(Annexure C-2) against  the demand of Rs.1761/- as raised vide bill dated 24.06.2021 (Annexure C-1). Concluding the arguments, the complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6.             The OPs have contested the complaint by raising preliminary objections as well as on merits in the written statement. The complaint has primarily been opposed on the ground that the demand of Rs.1761/- was raised vide provisional bill(Annexure C-1), whereas the actual bill was for Rs.2,454/-, which is evident from the bill(Annexure R-1). During arguments, the learned counsel for OPs reiterating the averments made in the written statement emphasized that the bill(Annexure C-1) vide which a demand of Rs.1,761/- was  raised, was a provisional one. It is contended that the demand raised for a sum of Rs.2,454/- vide bill(Annexure R-1) was based upon actual consumption of units and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being frivolous, baseless and meritless.

7.             The aforementioned contentions raised on behalf of the Ops are not tenable being contrary to actual facts. A bare perusal of two bills i.e. Annexure C-1, wherein the demand for Rs.1,761/- was raised, and the disputed bill(Annexure R-1), wherein the demand was raised for Rs.2,454/- reveals that both the bills are of the same date i.e. 24.06.2021 and the consumption of units in both the bills is the same i.e. Rs.1981.80. Further, the bill(Annexure C-1) does not indicate in any manner that it was a provisional bill. Therefore, there seems to be no justification on the part of the OPs No.2 & 3 to charge an excess sum of Rs.701/-. Furthermore, the demand raised vide disputed bill (Annexure R-1) is of Rs.2,454/-whereas the complainant was made to pay a sum of Rs.2,462/- i.e. Rs.8 more than the demand raised. In view of the aforementioned facts, it is concluded that the complainant was charged a sum of Rs.701/- in excess of the demand raised vide bill(Annexure C-1) amounting to Rs.1,761/-, thus, the OPs were deficient while rendering services to the complainant; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

8.             As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions against OPs No.1 to 3:-

1. To refund a sum of Rs.701/- to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization.
2. To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.1,500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

 

9.             The OPs No.1 to 3 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 to 3. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced: 25.11.2022

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini            Satpal

                Member                     Member                     President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

   Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini

         President