BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint No.65/18.

Date of instt.:26.3.2018. 

                                                                        Date of Decision:11.1.2019.

Rameshwar Dass s/o Shri Rania Ram, r/o H.No.403, Sector-19-I, HUDA, Kaithal.

                                                                        ……….Complainant.

                                             Versus

SDO OP, Sub Division No.2, UHBVN, Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Party.

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

Before:           Shri Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Suman Rana, Member.

Present:         Shri Hem Raj Wadhwa, Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Amit Sudershan, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that on 12.1.2018 at 09:45 AM, the bulb, LED of his house started made fluctuation, at the same time, he came out of his house and saw that meter fitted on the pole was giving sparking and he switched off the light of his house and he made a telephonic call on toll free No.1912 vide complaint No.UH57477162180112 was lodged with the OP. It is further alleged that the Area Foreman (No.93547-26180) has sent its employees at the spot and they told that the block of meter has burnt, but meter is OK and they told that the employee of OP had changed iron block to plastic block of meter and due to carelessness and negligent act of the OP, wires remained losse and nut bolt were not tight and due to which sparking occurred in the block of the meter. It is further alleged that he moved an application to the OP on 12.1.2018 to replace the meter and the OP changed the meter on 12.1.2018 within an hour and at the time of fitting of new meter, the reading of old meter was 13172 on 12.1.2018 and he consumed 194 units till 12.1.2018 (i.e. 12978-13172). It is further alleged that on 18.2.2018, he was astonished to receive bill amount of Rs.3835/- while the reading of new meter was 15-1= 14 units and reading of old (removed) meter was 13172-12978=194 units and thus he has consumed only 194 units + 14 units (of new meter) = 208 units and OP has issued bill of 696 units on average basis vide bill No.786310511347 on dt. 09.2.2018 to be paid on or before 26.2.2018. It is further alleged that he moved an application on dt. 19.2.2018 to the OP, the CA and JE of OP asked him to go the concerned bill clerk and the concerned clerk refused to correct the bill and made pressure on him to deposit the bill amount. It is further alleged that he had deposited the amount of Rs.3835/- under protest on 26.2.2018 and above said act of OP is careless and negligent. This act of OP amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus-standi and jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the grievance of the complainant has been redressed by the OP thereby overhauling his account as per preceding year and Rs.2653/- have been adjusted in his account; that on 12.1.2018, the complainant moved an application in regard of information of sparking and burnt the block of meter, and official of Nigam namely Rajdeep JE visited the spot and checked the meter and found meter reading as 13172 and on the same day, the meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No.55/516 on 12.1.2018; that said meter of complainant was not working due to burnt status, so average was taken in the month of February 2018 on the basis of reading recorded in proceedings year of February 2017 and Nigam has issued the bill legally and as per rules of Nigam; that thereafter account of the complainant was overhauled as per preceding year, so Rs.2653/- have been adjusted in the account of the complainant. On merits, the rest of 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; document Annexure CW1 to Annexure CW3. On the other hand, the OP tendered in evidence documents Ex.R1 to Ex. R3 and closed the evidence on 17.12.2018.  

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.     Perusal of the case file reveals that vide Mark C1, the complainant has requested the OP for rectification of the bill as well as for issuance of new bill. Ld. counsel for the complainant drew the attention of this Forum towards bill Mark C2, wherein, the consumed units have been shown 208 (14+194) but the OP has sent bill for units 696 (14+682).

        Undisputedly, the electricity meter of the complainant was changed on 12.01.2018 vide MCO No.55 Annexure RB, but it is strange that the account of the complainant was not overhauled, because, in the said bill Mark C2, no details have been mentioned. The OP in Annexure RD & Annexure RE has mentioned that The mtr of consumer was changed vide MCO No.55/516 dated 12.02.2018 FR 13172 working B/Burnt IR=0001. So average is taken excess in M/O 218. So A/c overhauled as per preceding same month so Rs.2653/- is here by adjusted. The detail is as under:-

         682-194= 488x 5.89 = 2581

                        ED                 48

                        MT                 24

                             Total          2653        

        Though the OP had adjusted the billed amount keeping in view the consumed units but its act and conduct clearly shows that it had taken the matter in causal manner without taking care of the interest of the consumer causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Since, the  grievance of the complainant has already been redressed as the electricity bill has already been corrected and an amount of Rs.2653/- has been adjusted in his account, therefore, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed with a direction to OP to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant for harassment, mental agony as well as cost of litigation. Compliance of the order be made within a period of 30 days. Copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.11.1.2019.

                        (Suman Rana)                    (Rajbir Singh)

                        Member.                            Presiding Member.

                                                                                  
Present:          Shri Hem Raj Wadhwa, Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Amit Sudershan, Advocate for the opposite party.

                     Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is partly allowed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.

Dated:11.1.2019.        Member.                    Presiding Member.