BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint No.49/17.

Date of instt.: 09.02.2017. 

                                                 Date of Decision:10.10.2017.

Smt. Saraswati Chalia w/o Shri Madan Chalia, r/o Chalia House, Gali No.2, Friends Colony, Karnal Road, Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.     

                                        Versus

1. Sub Division Officer, Sub Urban No.2, UHBVN, Kaithal.

2. Executive Engineer, Kaithal, UHBVN Kaithal.

3. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., C-16, Vidhyut Sadan,    Sector-6, Panchkula.

..……..Opposite Parties.

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

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.              

Present :        Shri Parvindr Singh, Advocate for complainant.

Shri Rahul Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that she got installed an electricity meter bearing account No.X45 KX30 2028 W (5/1) at her residential house and has been paying the bills regularly. It is alleged that she already paid Rs.17,231/- for 12316 unites, but the Ops has changed her meter without her permission or without any intimation/ notice to her. It is further alleged that Ops issued a bill of Rs.57,198/- for 13623 units. The said bill is wrong, illegal and excessive. It is further alleged that the complainant moved an application for correcting the said wrong bill and on the asking of Ops, she deposited Rs.1,000/- vide receipt No.133 dated 20.12.2016, but the Ops did not rectify the said bill and finally refused to do so on 01.02.2017. This act of Ops amounts to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.  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; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true and material facts are that the meter of consumer was changed vide MCO No.28/474 dated 06.10.2016, because during the general checking, block of the meter of consumer was found burnt, but reading of said removed old meter was wrongly mentioned as 17760 in MCO Form by mistake by JE and bill of Rs.57,198/- was served upon the consumer in the month of December 2016 and said mistake was rectified on MCO No.28/474 dated 06.10.2016 and correct bill for 13623 units for the month of 02/2017 of Rs.24,507/- was issued to the consumer and the complainant has paid Rs.1,000/- against the said bill of Rs.24,507/-. So, the complainant is chronic defaulter of UHBVN.  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; documents Ex.CA to Ex.CD and closed evidence on 07.07.2017. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A; documents Ex.RA to Ex.RC, Mark RA to Mark RC and closed evidence on 01.9.2017.  

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.     From the pleadings and evidence of the case, we found that it is not disputed that the complainant is having electricity connection No.X45 KX30 2028 W (5/1). The dispute between the parties is with regard to the bill for a sum of Rs.57,198/-. The complainant stated that the Ops had changed his old meter without any intimation or notice and issued a bill of Rs.57,198/- (Ex.CB) illegally. The Ops have stated that they had changed the old meter of the complainant vide Meter Change Order (MCO) No.474 dated 06.10.2016 as per Sales Instruction No.U-29/2014 and the said Sales Circular is regarding the procedure for replacement of burnt/ Dead stop / Defective/ Reading not visible meters. The Ops have checked the old meter of complainant and on checking, block of the meter was found burnt and accordingly the meter was changed. So contention of complainant that Ops have changed his old meter without any reason has no force, because the same was changed as per Sales Instruction Circular No.U-29/2014. Further, Ops admitted in their reply that by mistake, bill of Rs.57,198/- of 17760 units was served upon the complainant in the month of December 2016. The JE of Ops department wrongly mentioned units 17760 instead of 13623. An application about this mistake (Mark RA) received from the complainant and after receiving report from the concerned JE (Ex.RA), the said mistake was rectified on MCO No.28/474 dated 06.10.2016 and account of consumer overhauled vide SCR No.26/39 and billing amount of excess of units alongwith allowances to the tune of RS.34,818/- was adjusted in the account of consumer and a final correct bill for Rs.24,507/- for the month of 02/2017 was issued to the consumer. The Ops produced account statement of Account No.KX30-2028 of complainant (Ex.RC), which clearly shows that an amount of Rs.34,818/- has been adjusted in Allowances (Adjustment) column vide SCR No.26/39 and Rs.24,507/- is due, against which, the complainant has deposited only Rs.1,000/- on 20.12.2016 as part payment. So the contention of complainant is that Ops have issued illegal bill of Rs.57,198/- has no force as Ops had admitted his mistake and rectified the same by correcting the bill and thereafter, issued fresh bill of Rs.24,507/- for the month of 02/2017 to the complainant, who had paid only Rs.1,000/- on 20.12.16 as part payment against that amount. So, we are of the considered view that the complainant is a chronic defaulter of UHBVN from the month of December 2016. We find that bills issued to the complainant are legal, valid and justified. 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 dismiss the same.  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.

Dt.10.10.2017.

                                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                      Member.           Presiding Member.

Present :         Shri Parvindr Singh, Advocate for complainant.

Shri Rahul Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.

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

Dated:10.10.2017.         Member                      Presiding Member.