BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.1 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 03.01.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:29.11.2019.

Om Parkash son of Sh. Sarda Ram, R/o Village Khanpur, Tehsil Siwan, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Urban No.1, Kaithal through its XEN.
2. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, C-16, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

….Respondents.

Before:      Sh. D.N.Arora, President.

                Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

                Smt. Suman Rana, Member.

Present:     Sh. Davinder Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Ramesh Rana, Advocate for the OPs.

ORDER

D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection No.KU15-0902-Y and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that the complainant has a very average consumption of electricity ranging from 80 units to 429 units since the month of December, 2017 and the average consumption of electricity in terms of unit never exceeded 429 units.  It is further alleged that the complainant is using Solar Penal System for reducing the load of electricity upon his premises.  The complainant has challenged the bill No.01196 dt. 04.12.2018 for the month of October, 2018 for the sum of Rs.7671/- wherein the consumed units have been shown as 1115 units.  The said bill is wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint.  Hence, this complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that a bill for the month of October, 2018 was duly issued to the complainant by the Ops for 1115 consumed units and for 6926 INR.  It is pertinent to mention here that the old reading of the complainant was 6192 and the new reading was 7307 as per the October, 2081 bill of the complainant.  All the bills are issued to the complainant as per the actual consumption and as per the norms of UHBVN.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.           On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             The grievance of the complainant is that for the month of October, 2018 the consumption was shown as 1115 units vide bill bearing No.01196 dt. 04.12.2018 issued by the Ops and he requested the Ops to correct the bill as the units about 1115 were wrongly mentioned in the bill.  On the other hand, the Ops have placed on record copy of abstract of ledger (consumption data) from the period December, 2012 to August, 2019 Annexure-R1.  The only dispute regarding the bill of October, 2018 from which the consumption shown as 1115 units.  As per Annexure-R2, the Ops have placed on file the detail of tariff and they have taken into consideration the tariff rate from the period 2013 to 2018 and taken the average unit per month and they have reduced the amount of Rs.2782/- and adjusted the same.  However, it is the fault of Ops that their meter-reader has not recorded the consumption of the bill regularly and straightway they have sent the consumption of 1115 units without following the instructions regarding tariff rate.  No doubt, the Ops have reduced the amount of Rs.2782/- but they have done so after filing the present complaint.  If the Ops should have followed the instructions of Nigam as per tariff rate at the time of preparation of disputed bill, then there was no need to complainant for filing the present complaint.  We are of the considered view that the above-said act of Ops amounts to  deficiency in service on their part.

7.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint partly.  The Ops are directed to prepare the fresh bill after deducting the amount of Rs.2782/- as per Annexure-R2 from the bill No.01196 dt. 04.12.2018  amounting to Rs.7671/- without adding any surcharge/penalty within seven days after receiving the copy of this order and to send the fresh bill to the complainant and then they can recover the above-said amount in two equal installments with the further regular bills on bi-monthly basis.  The Ops are also directed to pay Rs.2500/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the litigation charges.  The above-said costs of Rs.2500/- will be adjusted by the Ops in the future bills of complainant.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:29.11.2019.  

                                                                        (D.N.Arora)

                                                                        President.

(Suman Rana),           (Rajbir Singh)         

Member                             Member.