BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.93/17.
Date of instt.: 03.04.2017.
Date of Decision:23.1.2018.
Madan Lal Wadhwa s/o Shri Narain Dass, r/o village and post office Siwan, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Secretary.
- Executive Engineer (OP) Division, UHBVN, Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.
- Sub Divisional Officer (OP) Sub Division Siwan, Sub Division Code K-36, UHBVN, Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Shri Anil Chutani, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Amit Sudershan, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is having an electric connection bearing No.X36KS110295M in the name of his father Shri Narain Dass which is installed at his premises. It is further alleged that previously on 25.7.2013, OP No.3 alongwith his officials were on routine checking and they checked the meter of the complainant and found OK as shown in checking report LL1 dt. 25.7.2013. It is further alleged that due to some problem, the said meter started to show consumption of huge units within a short span of time and he approached the OPs in this regard, but the OPs did not pay any heed. It is further alleged that he filed a complaint bearing No.168/2013 which was allowed vide order dt. 12.5.2015 with a direction to OPs to overhaul the account of the complainant and adjust all the paid bills according to average of meter reading of preceding six months from the date of disputed bill i.e. 28.7.2013. It is further alleged that during the proceedings of that complaint, he deposited the due amount for installation of checking meter as per norms of OPs vide receipt No.081882 dt. 23.8.2013. It is further alleged that he deposited Rs.37,213/- against the impugned bill in compliance of interim order dt. 19.8.2013 passed by this Forum in above said complaint and approached many times to OPs to rectify the meter in question or to correct the impugned bill/overhaul his account on average basis of meter reading as directed by this Forum vide order dt. 12.5.2015, but the OPs failed to comply with that order till date. It is further alleged that on the one hand the OPs are not correcting the meter installed in his premises and on the other hand, issuing wrong/inflated bills on the basis of wrong consumption of electricity at his premises. It is further alleged that OPs are threatening to pay Rs.4,84,195/- as shown in the bill dt. 17.2.2017, which is illegal, null and void. 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 written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus-standi; cause of action and jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the true & material facts from this Forum. The true and material facts are that an amount of Rs.14796/- was excessive and thereafter, Audit party of OPs have imposed Rs.98,954/- upon the complainant and overhauled his account and after overhauling an amount of Rs.92,537/- was due towards the complainant; that since 23.8.2013, the complainant never deposited even a single penny with OPs despite issuance of bill from September 2013 to June 2017; that a sum of Rs.3,42,368/- are due towards the complainant till today; that the meter of complainant has shown OK since very beginning and meter reader had always recorded the reading properly; that bill for January 2013 of Rs.30062 and bill of Rs.32155/- was issued but the same was not deposited by the complainant; that in May 2013 the OPs issued a bill of Rs.36,882/- showing 758 units consumed, upon this, the complainant got deposited Rs.18000/- on 31.5.2013 and net balance of Rs.19,436/- remained balance; that in July 2013, OP issued bill of Rs.21825/- to complainant and he got deposited Rs.37,263/- on 23.8.2013 with OPs and in this way, the complainant has become a chronic defaulter of Nigam. 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; documents Ex.C1 to C7 and closed evidence on 14.9.2017. On the other hand, the OPs tendered in evidence documents Ex.R1 to R3, R3A and closed evidence on 28.11.2017.
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. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant filed a complaint bearing No.168/13 against the OPs challenging the bill dt. 28.7.2013 and said complaint was allowed vide order dt. 12.5.2015 (Ex.C3) directing the OPs to overhaul the account of complainant and adjust all the paid bills according to the average of meter reading of preceding six months from the date of disputed bill. The grievance of the complainant is that as per order of this Forum, the complainant had already deposited due amount for installation of checking meter vide receipt No.081882 dt. 23.8.2013 as Ex.C4. But despite repeated requests, the OPs did not install the checking meter at his premises nor comply with the said order dt. 12.5.2015 till today, rather issued him illegal bill dt. 17.2.2017 for Rs.4,84,195/- (Ex.C7). The complainant had also produced receipt as Ex.C6 on the case file vide which he deposited Rs.37,213/- on 23.8.2013 with the OPs in compliance of interim order dt. 19.8.2013 passed by this Forum. The OPs contended that the meter of the complainant has shown OK since very beginning and meter reader has always recorded the reading properly and the bills issued to the complainant are legal one and the complainant is legally bound to pay the same. The OPs produced copy of account statement of the complainant as Ex.R1 showing Rs.4,84,195/- outstanding against the complainant on 2/2017. From above, it is clear that the OPs had not adjusted all the paid bills of the complainant according to the average of the meter reading of preceding six months in compliance with the order dt. 12.5.2015 passed by this Forum, rather the OPs are contending in his reply that the meter of the complainant has shown OK since very beginning and meter reader has always recorded the reading properly. Perusal of account statement of the complainant (Annexure A) from 1/2013 to 06/2017 shows that the meter reading of the meter of the complainant was not properly. The meter reading of months September 2014, November 2014 and December 2016 is shown as 4510, 4047 and 3492 respectively. In these months, the season was winter season. Generally, the consumer consumed less electricity in winter season, but as per the account statement of complainant Annexure A, the complainant has consumed very high electricity in these months, which is not believable. So, the contention of the OPs that the meter of the complainant is OK, has not tenable. It is pertinent to mention here that if the OPs was not satisfied with the order dt. 12.5.2015 passed by this Forum, then the OPs was at liberty to file appeal or revision against the said order as per law. But the OPs did not do so, that’s why the said order has attained finality and thereafter, the OPs was duty bound to comply with the said order in a zeal and spirit manner, but the OPs had not complied with the said order till today, rather harassing the complainant in one way or other and the OPs did not install the check meter at the premises of the complainant. So, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in rendering services to the complainant.
6. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complainant and direct the OPs to install a check meter at the premises of the complainant for one month and overhaul the account of the complainant as per reading of said check meter. 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.23.01.2018.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
Present : Shri Anil Chutani, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Amit Sudershan, Advocate for the opposite parties.
Remaining arguments not advanced. On request, case is adjourned to 23.1.2018 for remaining arguments.
Dated:19.1.2018. Member Presiding Member.
Present : Shri Anil Chutani, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Amit Sudershan, Advocate for the opposite parties.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:23.1.2018. Member Presiding Member.
