BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.195 of 2019.
Date of institution: 08.07.2019.
Date of decision:06.05.2022.
Shamsher Singh aged 44 years, son of Sher Singh, resident of Gali No.1, Ward No.1, Arjun Nagar Patti Afgan, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- UHBVN (Op.) Sub Division No.1, Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal through its S.D.O.
- UHBVN Kaithal through XEN, Kaithal.
- UHBVN, Panchkula, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Secretary.
….Respondents.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM: DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.
SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Varun Kumar Jaglan, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Karan Gaur, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER
DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT
Shamsher Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’).
In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant has an electric connection bearing account No.KZ-17/1177 and has been paying the bills regularly. It is alleged that the Ops have also allotted the above-said connection to Sat Pal. The complainant visited the office of the Ops to correct the above-said connection in the name of complainant in the record but the Ops did not pay any heed on the request of complainant. Thereafter, on 07.09.2018 the complainant moved an application before C.M.Window, Kaithal bearing complaint No.CMOFF/N/2018/106995 but no action has been taken so far and again on 15.11.2018 the complainant moved an application before C.M.Window, Kaithal bearing complaint No.CMOFF/N/2018/136448 but no action has been taken on this application till date. The Ops gave final report of the complaint on 12.09.2018 that the account No.KZ17/1177 is printed on the bill of two consumer having account No.7750122222 (KZ17-1177) in the name of Satpal Singh and 7048200000 (KZ99-1177) in the name of Shamsher Singh). The complainant requested the Ops several times to correct the connection in the name of one person and to issue the correct bill in the name of complainant from the date of installation of the meter but the Ops did not do so. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to this commission with the clean hands and is guilty of suppression and mis-representation of true and material facts. As a matter of fact, the old account number of the complainant was KZ-99-1177 (Binder Code of KZ-99 Group was ABWW) which was lateron transferred to Group KZ-17 (Binder Code of KZ-17 Group is ABWG). During the process of transfer of electricity connection of complainant from Binder ABWW (KZ-99 Group) to ABWG (KZ-17 Group), computerized system allotted electricity connection of the complainant as KZ-17-1177 in place of KZ-99-1177. It is further submitted that a unique ID as 7048200000 was also allotted to complainant’s electricity connection. But at the same time, one other consumer namely Satpal Singh S/o Bir Singh was also having same electricity connection as KZ-17-1177. As such, the electricity connection of above-said named Satpal Singh was changed as KZ-17-5036 with unique ID as 7750122222 (Binder DACT). From the facts submitted above, it is clear that the electricity connection of complainant as-well-as above named Satpal Singh are different with different unique ID which ID cannot be same for two consumers. 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. To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C21 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Harish Goel, S.D.O. Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. Sh. V.K.Jaglan, Adv. for the complainant has stated that the complainant-Shamsher Singh was having an electric connection bearing account No.KZ17-1177 since long. He has argued that another consumer namely Sat Pal was issued the same binder code by the respondents. Hence, he was not sure whether he was paying the electricity bills of Sat Pal or his own bills. He complained to the respondents but no response was received. Hence, vide Annexure-C2, he made complaint before C.M.Window, Kaithal vide which in the reply, respondents mentioned that this was the mistake of MRTP which were engaged by the respondents-UHBVN to process the account of UHBVN. Hence, same binder code was issued to Sat Pal and Shamsher Singh but since 19.01.2019, separate binder code was issued to Shamsher Singh.
7. Sh. Karan Gaur, Adv. for the respondents has stated that the complainant was issued a separate unique connection ID since beginning which cannot be similar with the another consumer.
8. Now also Shamsher Singh is having confusion that he is not sure whether he is paying the electricity bills of Sat Pal or the electricity bills of himself. Hence, respondents are hereby directed to change the electricity meter of complainant at his own expenses within 45 days from today. Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly with cost. The cost is assessed as Rs.11,000/- which will be paid by the respondents to the complainant.
9. In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:06.05.2022.
(Dr. Neelima Shangla)
President.
(Rajbir Singh), (Suman Rana),
Member. Member.
Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.
