Haryana

Karnal

CC/317/2016

Suresh Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Dost Mohomad

17 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No.317 of 2016

                                                      Date of instt. 06.10.2016

                                                      Date of decision 17.04.2018

 

Suresh Chand son of Shri Duli Chand resident of village Uchana, District Karnal.                                                                                                                                                                        

…….Complainant.

                                                Versus              

 

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub-Division, Taraori, District Karnal through its SDO “OP”.

       

                                                                        ..…..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before    Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Sh. Anil Sharma………Member

               

 

 Present   Shri Dost Mohmad Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri Yasvir Singh Advocate for OP.

                  

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is having a domestic connection bearing account no.TD17-01972-H. The complainant is paying the electricity bills regularly and nothing is due against the OP. The complainant has received the electricity bill amounting to Rs.56,571/- which was to be paid upto 16.02.2015. After receiving the bill the complainant was very surprised and he approached the OP and made enquiry regarding the said bill. On this officials of the OP told that a sum of Rs.55,786/- as surcharge which is pending against the complainant whereas the complainant has paying the bills regularly. The complainant requested the OP for correction of the bill so that he may be able to deposit the aforesaid bill, but officials of the OP firstly postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to correct the bill. Then complainant served a legal notice upon the OP in that regard but all in vain. 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 concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is submitted that complainant is consumer of the OP and having electricity connection bearing account no.TD-17-01972-H. The fact is that the Meter Reader of the Area of the site of the complainant has shown the meter of the complainant as “Dead” from the period from 9/2012 to 11/2015 whereas the fact is that at that time the meter was in running condition and was quite o.k. on 5.1.2016 the JE of the area verified the said meter of the complainant and on verification, he found that the meter is OK and reading was found as “13763.” After the said verification report, the account of the complainant was overhauled by the OP from the period from 9/2012 to 11/2015 in the following manner:-

Dead meter reading shown as       =2094 units

Actual meter reading found as       =12579 units

Chargeable units                         =10485 units

@ Rs.5.32 per Units, amount Rs.55786/-.

The bill of Rs.55786/- has been issued to the complainant as per actual consumption of the meter shown at the time of verification of meter. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C24 and closed the evidence on 15.12.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Kuldeep Singh C.A. Ex.DW1/A and documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D2 and closed the evidence on 19.03.2018.

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

6.             According to the complainant, he was having DS connection bearing account no.-TD17-01972-H. It is alleged that the complainant received a bill of Rs.56571/- to be paid upto 16.02.2015. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP and made enquiry about the correction of the bill but the OP refused to correct the same.

7.             On the other hand, the OP contended that the meter reader of the area had shown the meter of complainant “Dead” from the period 9/2012 to 11/2015 in connivance with the complainant. It is further contended that on 5.1.2016, when the meter was verified by the area J.E., the meter was found in o.k. condition and the reading in the meter was found “13763”. After said verification report, the account of the complainant was overhauled by the OP from 9/2012 to 11/2015 and the chargeable units were found as “10485” after deducting the units for which the payment was made by the complainant. The bill for the abovesaid ‘10485’ units comes to Rs.55,786/-. And the bill was prepared as per actual consumption of the electricity. It is further contended that in pursuance of the order dated 14.3.2017 passed by this Forum, bill was prepared after deducting the surcharge and delivered to the complainant against receipt. But the complainant has not deposited the same inspite of the order of this Forum. It is further contended that from January, 2016 till date the complainant has not paid a single penny towards his bill inspite of the order dated 14.3.2017 passed by this Forum. It is further contended that now Rs.1,12,842/- are due against the complainant. It is further contended that inspite of the meter shown dead from 9/2012 to 11/2015 in the bills, the complainant never approached the OP for installation of new meter which indicated the connivance of the complainant with meter reader

8.             From the submissions of the parties, it is clear that a bill for Rs.56,571/- was issued in January, 2016 to the complainant. The complainant has placed the bills Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-24 on the file. From these bills it is clear that in bills from Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-16 the meter of the complainant has been shown as Dead and the bills to the complainant were issued on average basis. The contention of the OPs that the complainant had connivance with the meter reader has force because the meter of the complainant shown Dead from 9/2012 to 11/2015 in the bills but inspite of that the complainant never approached the OP for installation of new meter. This fact clearly indicates the connivance of the complainant with meter reader.

9.             It is pertinent to mention here that from the order dated 14.3.2017 it is clear that the OP was restrained from disconnecting the electric supply of the complainant till the decision of the present complaint subject to depositing the amount of Rs.56,571/- after deducting the surcharge claimed in the bill within a period of 15 days. The representative of OP made a statement on 11.4.2018 before this Forum that the complainant has not deposited any amount towards his bill since January, 2016. The above interim order was passed on 14.3.2017 vide which the disconnection of complainant was subject to depositing of Rs.56,571/- after deducting the surcharge claimed. But inspite of the bill delivered to the complainant after correction, the complainant has not deposited the same. The complainant has not denied the receipt of corrected bill at the time of argument. As the complainant has not deposited any bill amount since January 2016, therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the complainant is a habitual defaulter. Inspite of the order of this Forum the complainant has not deposited the bill amount, therefore, the restraint order dated 14.3.2017 passed this Forum is hereby vacated. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OP.

11.            In view of the above discussions, we found no merits in the 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: 17.04.2018

                                                                       

                                                                         President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                        (Anil Sharma)

                          Member