BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.343/16.
Date of instt.: 17.11.2016.
Date of Decision: 01.08.2017.
Korri Devi Wd/o Parbhu Ram, R/o Ward No.9, Sanjay Colony, Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sub Division ‘O.P.’, Guhla, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal through its S.D.O., ‘O.P.’
- Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Secretary, Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Sukhdev Punia, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is having electricity connection bearing account No.X35PG114478 (DS) and has been paying the bills regularly. It is alleged that the meter of complainant was running very fast and the complainant gave an application dt. 02.11.2016 to Op No.1 for checking the meter and installed the new meter in place of defective meter. It is further alleged that the Ops issued a bill amounting to Rs.18,283/- to the complainant. The said bill is wrong and illegal. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the electricity connection in question is in the name of complainant and a bill of Rs.18,283/- was issued to the complainant as per norms and regulations of Nigam, which was not paid by the complainant. The said bill is legal and valid. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C7 and closed evidence on 18.04.2017. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and closed evidence on 15.05.2017.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant is having electricity connection bearing account No.X35PG114478 (DS) and has been paying the bills regularly. He further argued that the meter of complainant was running very fast and the complainant gave an application dt. 02.11.2016 to Op No.1 for checking the meter and installed the new meter in place of defective meter. He further argued that the Ops issued a bill amounting to Rs.18,283/- to the complainant. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that the bill of Rs.18,283/- was issued to the complainant as per actual consumption of electricity and as per norms and regulations of Nigam, which was not paid by the complainant. He further argued that the said bill is legal and valid. He further argued that the bill issued on 07.10.2016 for which the due date was 24.10.2016, Annexure-C1 shows that the complainant has not deposited the previous bill and the amount of previous bill amounting to Rs.8691.86 paise has been shown as arrears outstanding in the bill in question. He further argued that the bill in question is regarding the consumption of 1302 units, whereas from the bill in question it is clear that the previous bills for August, 2016 and June, 2016 were for the consumption of 1162 and 1231 units respectively. He further argued that the bill in question is not excessive in any manner.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is admitted case of the parties that the complainant has the electricity connection bearing No.X35PG114478 (DS). According to Ops, the bill in question amounting to Rs.18,283/- was issued to the complainant as per actual consumption of the electricity and as per norms and regulations of the Nigam. We found force in the contention of Ops that the bill in question has been issued on the basis of actual consumption of electricity by the complainant. From the bill in question itself, it is clear that the bill issued in October, 2015 for 1013 units, November, 2015 for 1391 units, February, 2016 for 723 units, April, 2016 for 736 units, June, 2016 for 1231 units and August, 2016 for 1162 units. It is also clear from the bill that the present bill is for the consumption of 1302 units and the bill also reflects that the complainant has not deposited the previous bill as the arrears outstanding against him has been shown in the bill. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the bill in question of the complainant is excessive. The contention of complainant that the bill in question is excessive, wrong, illegal and without checking the meter properly has no force. Moreover, the complainant has not proved his contention by producing cogent evidence on the file. Even the complainant has failed to produce on the file any receipt regarding the deposit of the amount regarding previous bill, which is shown as arrears in the bill in question. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.01.08.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
