BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.243/15.
Date of instt.: 09.10.2015.
Date of Decision: 22.08.2016.
Satish Kumar Arora son of Chander Bhan, r/o Village Fatehpur, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Pundri, through its Sub Divisional Officer ‘OP’ S/Divn.No.1.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Secretary, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, 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. Satish Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Ramesh Rana, 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 a DS electric connection bearing account No.KN-12-0802 but the Ops have shown the said connection as NDS category in the electricity bill of above-said connection. It is alleged that on 01.07.2015, some officials of the Ops visited the premises of complainant and on the false allegations of slow meter, they removed the electricity meter of complainant and installed a new electricity meter in place of old meter and also prepared a checking report. It is further alleged that in the month of September, 2015, the complainant received a bill dt.24.09.2015 amounting to Rs.45,630/- in which the Ops imposed sundry charges of Rs.35,645/-, which 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 written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the premises of complainant was checked by checking party in the presence of complainant and on inspection, the meter of complainant was found working slow. The site of the user was checked and on the checking of site energy meter with the account No.KN-12-082 by M/s. YMPL, the existing meter declared slow i.e. 52.28% slow. The meter was sent to M & T laboratory and on checking by the M & T lab, the lab prepared an observation/report that the meter was already checked By M/s. YMPL and found 52.28% slow, meter opened for internal verification and P/coil and connected wire found overheated. After assessment of slowness of the meter, an amount of Rs.35,645/- was charged in the connection No.KN-12-802 vide LL-1 No.18/254 dt. 01.07.2015. 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 Mark-CA & Mark CB and closed evidence on 14.06.2016. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed evidence on 14.06.2016.
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. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is not disputed that the complainant is having electricity domestic connection No.KN-12-0802 with the Ops. The dispute between the parties is with regard to bill dt. 24.09.2015 amounting to Rs.45,630/-. As per complainant, in the said bill, an amount of Rs.35645/- has been shown as sundry charges and the said amount is wrong and illegal, whereas as per Ops, the said amount of sundry charges is legal and valid. On perusal of checking report, Ex.R1, it is clear that on 01.07.2015, the premises of complainant was checked by checking party in the presence of complainant and on inspection, the meter of complainant was found working slow. The site of the user was checked and on the checking of site energy meter with the account No.KN-12-082 by M/s. YMPL, the existing meter declared slow i.e. 52.28% slow. The meter was packed for sending to A.E.E., M & T Lab, Kaithal. The meter was sent to M & T laboratory for checking. A notice bearing memo No.1558 dt. 08.07.2015, Ex.R2 was also issued in the name of the wife of complainant to attend the office of A.E.E. M & T Lab, Kaithal on 13.07.2015 at 10.00 a.m. which was received by the complainant as the same bears his signatures. The meter was checked in the A.E.E., M & T Lab, Kaithal on 13.07.2015 in the presence of complainant and the report in this regard, Ex.R3 is placed on the file by the Ops. On checking the said meter, the lab prepared an observation/report that the meter was already checked by M/s. YMPL and found 52.28% slow and the meter was opened for internal verification in the lab and the P/coil and connected wire were found overheated. So, in view of said M & T lab report, we are of the considered view that the penalty of Rs.35,645/- imposed by the Ops is legal and valid. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.
6. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and we hereby dismiss the same. 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.22.08.2016.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
