Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/249/2014

Karam Chand s/o Sh.Bal Kishan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

XEN UHBVNL, - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Sharma

14 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

                                                                                   Complaint No.249 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of Institution:23.5.2014.

                                                                                    Date of Decision:14.9.2017.

 

Karam Chand aged 31 years son of Shri Bal Kishan, resident of Joginder Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                              

                                                                                                             …Complainant.                                                          

                                          Versus

 

1.         The Executive Engineer, Sub Division, Industrial Area, UHBVNL, Yamuna Nagar.

2.         Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Managing Director/Chairman

                                                                                                              ..Respondents.         

                                                                                   

Before: SH. SATPAL …………….    PRESIDENT

            SH. S.C. SHARMA  …………………………MEMBER.

            SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, ………...MEMBER

 

Present: Complainant in person.

              Sh.Sanjay Sharma, Advocate, for respondents.

 

ORDER   :       (SATPAL, PRESIDENT).

 

1.                     The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter the respondents shall be referred as OPs). 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is consumer of the Ops having domestic electric connection No.Y42YA107614.  The complainant used to receive the consumption bills ranging between 100 to 150 units.  Earlier, the meter of complainant had become defective and bills were being sent on average basis for which the complainant had intimated the Ops well in time, on which the old meter was changed by OP No.1.  The new meter installed by the OP No.1 started running very fast and the first bill dated 8.10.2013 was issued showing the old reading as 22 and new reading as 558, second bill for 12/2013 came for 109 units.  Subsequently, the bill dated 6.2.2014 was issued showing the old reading as 667 and new reading as 1550 i.e. for 883 units.  It shows that the meter installed by the Op No.1 was not giving accurate reading as there was abrupt jump in the meter reading as such the Ops had sent the average bills on the basis of the reading shown by the new meter.  The complainant got served a registered legal notice dated 21.2.2014 through his counsel to replace the defective meter and to send the correct bill as per actual consumption, on which the Ops sent their two officials who checked the connection of the complainant and rectified the connections from the pole and the meter and assured that the accurate reading will be started from the meter as the officials who had installed the meter had given the wrong connections to the meter from the pole due to which the meter was running too fast. Thereafter, the meter had given the correct reading i.e. of around 100 units in the current bill dated 13.4.2014 as per the previous bills which the complainant used to receive in the past in the average of 100 to 150 units.  The complainant requested the Ops to rectify the bills of the complainant but of no use, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint by directing the Ops to rectify the current bill and issue the correct bill as per actual consumption which the complainant used to receive in the past in average of 100 to 150units and further to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of proceedings. 

3.                     Upon notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum.  True facts are that the electricity connection bearing No.Y-42YA107614 was released in the name of consumer, the demand bills have been sent to the consumer as per meter reading and actual consumption of the electricity and as per the instructions given in the Sales Circular No.U-43/2006 for which the consumer is very liable to pay and the amount deposited by the consumer was very much legal.  However, the 40% amount deposited by the complainant as per the direction of this Forum is not refundable.  On merits, the Ops reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

4.                     To prove his case the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as annexure CW/A, documents such as copy of legal notice as annexure C.1, copy of postal receipts as annexure C.2, acknowledgement as annexure C.3, copies of bills as annexure c.4 to C.9 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, Ops have failed to tender any evidence, hence, the evidence of the Ops was closed by court order vide order dated 7.8.2017.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. 

7.                     After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, it is clear that the complainant is consumer of the Ops and has been paying the bills regularly.  The version of the complainant has also been also admitted by the Ops in para no.3 of the written statement by mentioning the same as matter of record that the meter of the complainant was changed being defective one.   Now so far as the question of next three bills which the complainant has contended as exorbitant after change of the meter is concerned, as per the specific pleadings of the complainant are that the bill dated 8.10.2013 had shown old reading as 22 and new reading as 558, consumed units as 536; bill dated 16.12.2013 had shown the old reading as 558 and new reading as 667 consumed reading as 109; bill dated 6.2.2014 had shown the old reading as 667 new reading as 1550 and consumed reading as 883 for which the Ops be directed to issue bills as per actual consumption.  The complainant in para no.5 of the complainant had taken the specific plea that on receipt of legal notice dated 21.2.2014 two officials  of Ops visible the premises of the complainant and rectified the connections of the complainant at the pole as well as at the meter of the complainant.  This plea of the complainant has neither been denied by the Ops nor controverted by way of any cogent evidence, hence, the same seems to be admitted.  So, the version of the Ops that the bills have been issued as per actual consumption is not tenable.  Hence, the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is proved and the complainant is entitled for relief to the extent of overhauling of account of the complainant.  We have perused the copies of bills placed on the file.  It is clear that the bill dated 8.6.2013 (annexure C.8) just prior to the bills in dispute is for 100 units and the bill dated 13.4.2014 (annexure C.9) just after the bills in dispute is for 153 units, so to see and save the loss to the exchequer of the State Government as well as in the interest of justice, it appears to be reasonable and justifiable to this Forum to take the above reading i.e.153 units bi-monthly as base.  From the perusal of the copies of bills it is clear that there is variation in disputed bills from the regular bills.

              So, in view of the above said discussions, we therefore, direct the Ops to charge the bills of disputed period i.e. bill dated 10/13, 12/2013 and 2/2014 @ 153 units bi-monthly by overhauling the account of the complainant and issue the fresh bill within one month from the date of preparation of copy of this order and accept the same without any surcharge.  However, the complainant is directed to pay the amount as per fresh bill to be issued by the Ops with the next bill.   It is further made clear that if the complainant fails to deposit the amount, the Ops shall be at liberty to charge the further surcharge on the amount from the date of issue the fresh bill.  It is also made clear that the complainant had deposited the 40% amount of the disputed amount as per the direction of this Forum which shall be adjusted in the account of the complainant at the time of overhauling the account and after overhauling, if any, amount is found due towards the complainant that be recovered by issuing the fresh bill and if any amount found excess the same be adjusted in the account of the complainant.  Complaint stands disposed off accordingly.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs.  File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court:14.9.2017.                                     

                                                                                                (SATPAL)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

                       (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                    (S.C. SHARMA)

                      MEMBER.                                                     MEMBER.