BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.210 of 2018.
Date of institution: 24.08.2018.
Date of decision:27.08.2019.
Satya Babu Goel S/o Sh. Tek Chand, r/o H.No.1379/11, Opposite Milan Palace, Ambala Road, Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- S.D.O., ‘OP’, Sub Division No.II, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Secretary, O/o Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. M.K.Nirwani, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Amit Sudershan, 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 bearing account No.4957200000 and has been paying the bills regularly. It is alleged that the complainant has received a bill dt. 05.09.2017 in which the Ops have shown the reading old as 3074 new 3290 (units consumed 216) for 61 days i.e. 20.06.2017 to 20.08.2017. The complainant moved an application in the office of Ops to issue the bill on the basis of consumption consumed upto 19.09.2017, on which the Ops issued the bill dt. 22.09.2017 showing the consumption old 3074 new 7785 (units consumed 4711) for 91 days i.e. 20.06.2017 to 19.09.2017. The complainant again moved an application to get the meter checked in the laboratory being the excess reading shown in the bill which was never used by the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant ultimately deposited the bill amount of Rs.35,953/- vide receipt dt. 22.09.2017 under protest. The complainant made several requests to the Ops to refund the excess amount but the Ops did not listen the genuine request of complainant. 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 the complainant moved an application dt. 13.11.2017 to the Ops to verify the reading of the meter which the concerned officials visited the site of the complainant and found working of the meter was O.K. and reading 8497 on 17.11.2017 and the bill of complainant was re-issued in his favour as per report of said application after deduction of Rs.1163/- as difference amount in lieu of bill dt. 05.09.2017 for the sum of Rs.1163/- which has been cancelled and the bill amount of Rs.1163/- has been adjusted/deducted in the next bill dt. 22.09.2017 and the old reading was mentioned as 3074 and new reading was recorded as 7785 i.e. units consumed 4711 as meter reading and thereafter again new reading was recorded as 8497. Hence, the bill dt. 28.11.2017 is legal and valid. 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 Mark-C1 to Mark-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence documents Annexure-RA to Annexure-RE and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. Undisputed the complainant is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection bearing account No.4957200000. According to the complainant, he has received a bill dt. 05.09.2017 in which the Ops have shown the reading old as 3074 new 3290 (units consumed 216) for 61 days i.e. 20.06.2017 to 20.08.2017. The complainant moved an application in the office of Ops to issue the bill on the basis of consumption consumed upto 19.09.2017, on which the Ops issued the bill dt. 22.09.2017 showing the consumption old 3074 new 7785 (units consumed 4711) for 91 days i.e. 20.06.2017 to 19.09.2017 or 4495 units for 30 days (4711-216units=4495 units). The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops did not issue the correct bill to the complainant and he has prayed for refund of excess amount deposited by him.
7. We have perused the case file. The Ops have specifically mentioned in the reply that the complainant moved an application dt. 13.11.2017 Annexure-RB to the Ops to verify the reading of the meter which the concerned officials visited the site of the complainant and found working of the meter was O.K. and reading was found as 8497 on 17.11.2017 and the bill of complainant was re-issued in his favour as per report of said application after deduction of Rs.1163/- as difference amount in lieu of bill dt. 05.09.2017 for the sum of Rs.1163/- which has been cancelled and the bill amount of Rs.1163/- has been adjusted/deducted in the next bill dt. 22.09.2017 and the old reading was mentioned as 3074 and new reading was recorded as 7785 i.e. units consumed 4711 as meter reading and thereafter again new reading was recorded as 8497. Hence, the above-said bill dt. 28.11.2017 was rightly issued by the Ops. The another contention of complainant is that after receiving the bill in question, the complainant moved an application to get the meter checked in the laboratory but the complainant has not placed on file the copy of said application or receipt of requisite fee for testing the meter which could prove that the complainant had ever moved any such application with the Ops, so, this contention of complainant has no force. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.
8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 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.:27.08.2019.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
