BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.308/16.
Date of instt.: 06.10.2016.
Date of Decision: 24.07.2017.
Randhir Singh son of Sh. Rikhi Ram Paschan, age 38 years, resident of Amargarh Gamri, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division No.1, Kaithal.
- Executive Engineer, UHBVN, Kaithal.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula, through its Secretary.
..……..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. Vivek Berwal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Rahul Gupta, 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.4423300000 (old account No.2122103UKZ242017) and has been paying the bills regularly. It is alleged that in the month of May, 2016, the account of the complainant was audited by the Ops and excess amount was found deposited by the complainant and the Ops issued a bill of Rs.627/- in minus. It is further alleged that the Ops issued a bill dt. 09.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.5323/- and the same was got deposited by the complainant. It is further alleged that the Ops issued bill dt. 05.09.2016 for a sum of Rs.22,924/- showing Rs.10,012/- total current cycle charges and Rs.12,912/- as sundry charges. He further argued that 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 account of complainant was checked by the Internal Audit Half Margin Team and during that internal audit, consumption analysis was recorded and found that in the account of complainant, the bills were wrongly issued on average consumption of 200 units instead of actual consumption. The audit party observed that an amount of Rs.35,273.81 paise be recovered for units short charged and further advised that the proposed amount of recovery may be charged after proper verification of record and instruction. The Ops after verification of record found that the old meter was changed on 5101 units reading and the new meter was recording consumption accurately but due to inadvertence and mistake in the column of old reading, the reading was recorded as 5101 units instead of actual reading which was shown in the new meter. Hence, the account of complainant was overhauled and the Ops demanded the amount of Rs.12,912/- from the complainant in the bill dt. 05.09.2016. 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 Ex.CA to Ex.CJ and closed evidence on 17.02.2017. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed evidence on 17.04.2017.
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.4423300000 (old account No.2122103UKZ242017) and has been paying the bills regularly. He further argued that the Ops issued a bill dt. 05.09.2016 for a sum of Rs.22,924/- showing Rs.10,012/- total current cycle charges and Rs.12,912/- as sundry charges. He further argued that the Ops have not given the details for which purpose the sundry charges were levied. He further argued that the said bill is wrong and illegal. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that the account of complainant was checked by the Internal Audit Half Margin Team and during that internal audit, consumption analysis was recorded and found that in the account of complainant, the bills were wrongly issued on average consumption of 200 units instead of actual consumption. He further argued that the audit party observed that an amount of Rs.35,273.81 paise be recovered for units short charged and further advised that the proposed amount of recovery may be charged after proper verification of record and instruction. He further argued that the Ops after verification of record found that the old meter was changed on 5101 units reading and the new meter was recording consumption accurately but due to inadvertence and mistake in the column of old reading from September, 2010 to September, 2013 as is clear from Ex.R4, the reading was recorded as 5101 units instead of actual reading which was shown in the new meter. He further argued that the account of complainant was overhauled before the issuance of the bill in question and the Ops demanded the amount of Rs.12,912/- from the complainant which is shown as sundry charges in the bill dt. 05.09.2016. Ld. counsel for the Ops made a statement today i.e. 24.07.2017 to the effect that out of the amount of Rs.12,912/- of sundry charges, an amount of Rs.12,441/- has been adjusted and now Rs.471/- are due regarding the sundry charges. He placed the calculation on the file. He further argued that during earlier verification, they deduced the 4000 units (i.e. 200 units average x 20) which were charged on average basis, whereas on re-checking it is found that sometimes, the complainant has been charged for 400 units on average basis. He further argued that from Ex.R4, it is clear that the complainant has been charged for 5800 units on average basis between September, 2010 to September, 2013 and now these units have been adjusted. He further argued that on the basis of these average units, an amount of Rs.10,422/- has been adjusted and the remaining amount of Rs.2019/- is adjusted towards the surcharge from September, 2016 to July, 2017 and he placed a calculation on the file. He further argued that now Rs.12,441/- have been adjusted out of the amount of Rs.12,912/-. He further argued that the above mis-calculation has been happened due to clerical mistake.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the Ops have admitted that there was a clerical mistake in the calculation and the same has been rectified. The Ops have already placed on the file the account statement of electricity connection of the complainant. From this account statement, Ex.R4, it is clear that from September, 2010 to September, 2013, in the column of old reading, 5101 units have been shown each time. On the pointing out by the audit party, the re-calculation of the account of the complainant has been made by the Ops, but there was a clerical mistake in the said calculation and the same has now been rectified by the Ops. The remaining amount of the bill in question of the complainant is on the basis of the units consumed by the complainant. Ld. counsel for the complainant is also agreed with the calculation produced by the Ops but he made request for compensation. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the excess amount shown in the bill in question was not intentional but due to clerical mistake and the same has been rectified by the Ops. So, the present complaint of the complainant has become infructuous.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we dismiss the complaint being infructuous. 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.24.07.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
