Haryana

Panchkula

CC/210/2016

BALWINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

SANJEEV KUMAR.

14 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                   

Consumer Complaint No.	:	210 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	11.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	14.06.2017

 

Balwinder Singh s/o Sh.Baldev Singh, aged 45 years, permanent R/o House No.276, Defence Colony, Ambala Cantt.

2^nd Address:-

House No.1, Police Line, Moginand, Sector-25, Tehsil and District Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

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

2.       Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Sub-Divisional Officer (Operation), City Sub-Division, Industrial Area, Phase II, Panchkula.

3.       Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Executive Engineer/Operation Division, Panchkula.

4.       Deputy Commissioner of Police, Panchkula.

                                                                    ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Adv., for the complainant.

                             Mr.Y.P.Rana, Adv., for the Ops No.1 to 3.

                             Defence of OP No.4 already struck off.

 

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that he has an electric connection bearing account No.A27P553-1862K for domestic supply and was paying the electricity bill regularly. Since the date of installation of meter connection to till May, 2014, the maximum consumed unit was 1000 to 1700 in a cycle. The complainant requested the Ops No.1 to 3 to check the meter as the meter was showing excess units. Thereafter, in the month of July, 2014, the complainant received a bill No.09108 dated 11.07.2014 in which the unit consumption was shown as 2141. The complainant requested the Ops No.1 to 3 to check the meter as the same was showing excess consumption. The Ops No.1 to 3 directed the complainant to deposit Rs.20,000/- against the bill and they would get the meter checked. On the assurance of Op No.1 to 3, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- with the Ops. Thereafter, the complainant received the bill No.09141 dated 12.09.2014 in which the unit consumption was shown as 8515 and the amount of bill was shown as Rs.92,570/-. The complainant again requested the Ops No.1 to 3 to check the meter as the same was showing excess consumption. On the request of the complainant, the Ops no.1 to 3 removed the faulty meter in the absence of complainant and installed a new checking meter at the premises of the complainant. The complainant inquired about the installation of the new meter from the Ops No.1 to 3 who told that the meter installed was checking meter and further assured to correct the bill after seeing the consumption in the new checking meter. The complainant received a bill No.09145 dated 11.11.2014 on basis of checking meter reading and the unit consumption was shown as 927. The Ops No.1 to 3 without correcting and adjusting the excess amount, again added the previous bill amount in the said bill. The complainant requested the Ops No.1 to 3 to correct the previous bills but to no avail. The complainant received another bill No.09167 dated 12.01.2015 on basis of checking meter reading and the unit consumption was shown as 254 and in that bill, the Ops again added the previous bill amount. The complainant requested the Ops No.1 to 3 to correct the bill but to no avail. Thereafter, again the Ops No.1 to 3 issued bill No.00007 dated 12.04.2015 for an amount of Rs.1,04,749/- in which the reading of the new meter was shown as ‘Zero’, old reading was shown as ‘3180’ and unit consumption was shown as 100. The complainant requested the Ops No.1 to 3 many times to correct the bill but to no avail. Thereafter, the OP No.1 issued a letter No.27458 dated 06.07.2016 to the complainant wherein the complainant was directed to clear the arrears of the bill amount of electricity charges otherwise the electricity connection would be disconnected and the dues were shown as Rs.1,08,930/-. Again without correcting the bill, the Ops No.1 to 3 issued another bill No.00007 dated 19.07.2016 amounting to Rs.1,11,143/-. The complainant requested the Ops No.1 to 3 many times to correct the bill but to no avail and thereafter, he came to know that the Ops No.1 to 3 installed the meter in the premises of the complainant in the name of OP No.4. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops No.1 to 3 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking preliminary objection and submitted that the complainant is a consumer of Ops under account No.PS-53-1862K. Since the year, 2013, there was normal consumption of the electricity and the Ops No.1 to 3 used to send the bill of consumed units but in the month of July, 2014 the Ops No.1 to 3 have issued the bill of 2141 units and thereafter, also sent a bill of 8515 units to the complainant but the complainant did not pay the same. It is submitted that the complainant made request to replace the meter which was replaced with new one and further sent to M&T Lab where the meter was found ok. It is submitted that the Ops No.1 to 3 have issued the bill of 15429 units to the complainant but the bill of remaining 796 units was not sent. After installing the new meter, the Ops No.1 to 3 have issued the bill of 132 units (units of new meter) and remaining 796 units (which totaling 927 units) were also included in the bill of November, 2014 but the complainant did not deposit the same. Thereafter, the Ops No.1 to 3 used to send the bills of consumed units but the complainant failed to deposit the outstanding amount. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been deposited b the complainant with the Ops No.1 to 3 in the month of November, 2014 i.e. at the time of installing the new meter. It is submitted that the complainant used to make the part payment of the said amount but has not deposited the defaulting amount, therefore, the complainant made failure on the part of the complainant in making the payment of Rs,1,00,050/- till March, 2016 as per record of the Ops No.1 to 3 and the electricity connection was disconnected. It is submitted that the complainant has not deposited the arrears till date with the Ops No.1 to 3 and an amount of Rs.1,11,143/- was outstanding against the complainant till July, 2016. It is submitted that the officials of the department also made requests to the complainant for depositing the outstanding amount but to no avail. It is submitted that as per policy of the department, the new electricity connection had been installed in the name of Op No.4. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Notice issued to the OP No.4. On 19.09.2016, Sh.Parveen Kumar, Sub Inspector appeared on behalf of OP No.4 and sought time for filing written statement and the case was adjourned to 05.10.2016 for filing written statement alongwith entire evidence. On 05.10.2016, due to none appearance of Ops No.4, the case was adjourned to 25.10.2016 for filing written statement alongwith entire evidence. On 25.10.2016, due to lack of quorum, the case was again adjourned to 02.11.2016 for filing written statement alongwith entire evidence. On 02.11.2016, due to none appearance of Op No.4, the case was adjourned to 07.11.2016 for filing written statement alongwith of Op no.4 entire evidence. On 07.11.2016, none appeared on behalf of the Op No.4 nor has filed any written statement. As per Section 13 (2) (a) CP Act, the opposite party has to give his version in the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding to fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum. The OP No.4 failed to file the written statement within stipulated period and defence of the OP No.4 was struck off.
4. The complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-13 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the Ops No.1 to 3 has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A and closed the evidence.
5. Heard. The complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the Op has reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. The cue to the controversy can be found in the pleadings themselves which is an ideal scenario in the adjudicatory proceedings before a Forum therein disputed questions of facts are not entertainable.
7. In the present complaint, the complainant made a precise averment in para no.5 thereof that the faulty meter was removed in his absence, that a checking meter was installed in its place and the complainant was assured that the meter installed is the checking meter and further assured to correct the bill after seeing the consumption in the said checking meter.
8. None of these averments have been controverted in the corresponding para of the reply.
9. The uncontroverted averments quoted in the preceding para are obviously of determinative nature in adjudicating upon the grievance in the present complaint. These can be better appreciated in view of the fact that on the own showing of the Ops, the meter so installed recorded a reading of 132 units of consumption which (reading) is apparently in contrast to the reading which the replaced meter was showing. This would validate the grievance of the complainant that the earlier meter was giving excessive consumption.
10. The averment that the Ops got the replaced meter checked from the M&T Lab and was found in order is not binding upon the complainant because it is not even averred that the complainant had been associated with checking of the replaced meter at the M&T Lab. The outcome of the checking could be binding upon the complainant only if he had been intimated about and/or associated with the checking.
11. In the totality of facts available on record and extracted in the earlier part of this order, it is evident that the complainant has been able to prove the averment that he had been illegally billed for excessive consumption. The Ops are, thus, liable to bill the complainant as per the reading indicated by the checking meter. On the issuance of a bill in accord with that consumption and for the period in dispute, the complainant shall be liable to pay that amount.
12. While, thus, allowing the complaint, we would order that:-
    1. The Ops shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.

 

2. The Ops shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.

 

3. The Ops shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation.

 

The Ops shall issue a bill afresh, for the period in dispute, on the basis of the consumption indicated by the checking meter. The complainant shall then, pay the bill issued within a period of a fortnight. The complainant shall be entitled to the adjustment of the amount already thereof.

 

Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

14.06.2017  JAGMOHAN SING      ANITA KAPOOR       DHARAM PAL

                     MEMBER                  MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

 

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

 

                                          

                                            

                                                ANITA KAPOOR                                                                                               MEMBER