Haryana

Karnal

CC/304/2016

Yogdhayan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Surinder Gureta

07 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.304 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 30.09.2016

                                                         Date of decision:07.03.2018

 

Yogdhayan son of Shri Dariai Lal aged about 55 years resident of House no.166/13 Extension, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

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

2. Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVN Ltd. Sub Urban Sub Division, Karnal.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Sh. Anil Sharma…….Member

             

 

 Present  Shri Surender Gureja Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Bhanu Partap Advocate for OPs.

               

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is consumer of OPs having DS electricity connection bearing account no.5281220000. He has been regularly paying electricity charges. The sanctioned load of the meter is 5.40 K.W. The average consumption of electricity connection is around 700-800 units which is very much evident from the bill sent prior to 23.10.2015. In the bill from 23.10.2015 to 23.12.2015 the units consumed have been shown as 1948. Hence the complainant in January, 2016 moved an application to OP no.2 for replacement of the meter to the concerned JE, who after visiting the spot inspected the meter and reported that meter installed in premises of complainant is o.k. The complainant was not satisfied with said report. Then complainant applied for check meter which was installed in February, 2016 and at that time the meter was removed from the house and was installed on the electricity pole and after removal of the check meter, the reading of the meter of complainant and the check meter was found same. So, OPs refused to correct the account of complainant from the date of defect in the meter till its removal. Complainant received a bill for the period from 23.4.2016 to 23.06.2016 for Rs.85331/- in which amount of Rs.6605/- shown as current energy charges and an amount of Rs.76091.59 has been shown as previous balance whereas bill for the month of 23.12.2015 to 23.2.2016 shows that there was balance of only an amount of Rs.17266/- meaning thereby that complainant has consumed the electricity for an amount of Rs.68065/- which is totally impossible. On receipt of said bill the complainant visited the office of OP no.2 and requested for overhauling his account as per his previous consumption but he advised the complainant to firstly deposit some amount from that billed amount and then he will overall his account. Then complainant deposited an amount of Rs.30000/- on 29.7.2016 out of Rs.85331/- under protest. Complainant again received an amount of Rs.54439/- has been shown as previous balance and the same is payable on 26.09.2016. The said bill is totally illegal, null and void as the OP sent the bill without overhauling the account of complainant and charged the payment for the disputed period. Complainant visited the office of OPs several time and requested the OPs to overhaul the account of complainant but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi and cause of action; maintainability and concealments of true and material facts. On merits, it is submitted that since the reading of the check meter as well as the already installed meter was almost same and as such there arises no question at all of replacing the meter. It is, however, submitted that at present the meter installed in the premises of the applicant has been replaced as per policy of the Government. It is further submitted that the bill from the period from 23.4.2016 to 23.06.2016 was issued as per the reading shown by the meter installed in the premises of the applicant. It is further submitted that no assurance regarding overhauling the account of the applicant has not been given to the complainant as alleged. Rather the fact is that complainant visited the office of OP no.2 and showed his inability to deposit the entire amount in lump sum and requested for allowing him to pay the amount in installments and hence he was allowed to deposit the said amount in lump sum. The bill for the month of 23.6.2016 to 31.8.2016 has been rightly and legally issued. 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.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C18 and closed the evidence on 25.7.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Virender Kumar SDO Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R18 and closed the evidence on 2.1.2018.

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 case of the complainant is that complainant has a domestic electricity connection bearing account no.5281220000 and sanctioned load is 5.40 KW. It is alleged by the complainant that in the bill from 23.10.2015 to 23.12.2015 the unit consumed were shown 1948 and thereupon in January, 2016 the complainant moved an application to the OP no.2 for replacement of meter but the same was marked to the JE for report, who reported that the meter installed at the house of the complainant was o.k. It is further alleged that complainant was not satisfy with the said report and thereafter on the request of the complainant, a check meter was installed in February, 2016. The reading of the meter of the complainant and the check meter were found same. It is further alleged that the complainant received a bill from 23.4.2016 to 23.06.2016 for Rs.85331/- in which Rs.76091.59 were shown as previous balance whereas in the bill from 23.12.2015 to 23.02.2016 the total amount was Rs.27266/- out of which the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/-. It is further alleged that the consumption of electricity of Rs.68065/-by the complainant totally impossible. It is further alleged that the complainant has deposited Rs.30,000/- on 29.07.2016 under protest out of Rs.85331/-. It is further alleged that the complainant received a bill from 23.06.2016 to 31.08.2016 for Rs.63259/- in which an amount of Rs.54439/- has been shown as previous balance. It is further alleged that the said bill is totally illegal, null and void.

7.             on the other hand, the OP contended that since the reading of check meter and the meter of the complainant already installed were almost the same so there was no question to replace the meter. It is further contended that the bills of the complainant were issued as per reading shown by the meter installed in his premises and the amount deposited by the complainant has been deducted. The learned counsel for OP produced the copies of electricity bills Ex.R3 to Ex.R18 and stated that from these copies of the bills, it is clear that all the bills are based on the actual consumption.

8.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that complainant himself admitted that on his application, the electric meter installed his house was checked by the JE of the OP, who found the meter in o.k. condition. It is also admitted by the complainant that a check meter has been installed alongwith his meter and the reading of both the meters were found same. These facts clearly indicate that the meter installed at the premises of the complainant was in o.k. conditions. From the complaint itself, it is clear that the complainant has admitted that out of Rs.85331/- the bill amount for the period from 23.4.2016 to 23.06.2016, he deposited Rs.30,000/- which means the entire amount was not deposited and Rs.55331/-remain balance. The allegation of the complainant that in the bill for the period from 23.06.2016 to 31.08.2016 the OPs have added the balance amount of Rs.54439/- as previous balance has no force. Because as stated above this amount was remained balance as the complainant has only deposited Rs.30,000/-. Moreover, the OPs have placed the copies of the bill Ex.R3 to Ex.R18. The disputed bill is Ex.R11 and the relevant bills are Ex.R11 to Ex.R14. Even from these bills it is clear that the same were sent on the basis of consumed units. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove that the electricity meter installed at his premises was a defective and the OPs have wrongly added any amount in his bills. Thus, we found no deficiency on the part of the OPs.

9.             Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, 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: 07.03.2018

                                                               

 

                                                                  President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

         (Anil Sharma)

           Member