BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.52/2017.
Date of instt.: 13.02.2017.
Date of Decision: 09.11.2017.
Som Nath son of Shri Mam Chand, r/o Moti Mohalla, Tehsil Pundri, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- S.D.O. Op, S/Division No.1, UHBVN, Pundri, Distt. Kaithal.
- Executive Engineer, Op Division, UHBVN, Pundri.
- Secretary, UHBVN, Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present: Shri Pradeep Harit, Advocate for complainant.
Shri J.P. Jaglan, 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 he is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection No.X52-KN38-5097. It is alleged that the Ops have issued bill No.08391 on dt. 07.12.2016 for a sum of Rs.30,673/- to be paid on or before 27.12.2016 and in this bill, the Ops have shown the amount of Rs.11,000/- were deposited by him on 09.8.2016. It is further alleged that he moved an application before Ops on 23.12.2016, which was marked to the CA, who made calculation and net amount to be deposited of Rs.17,227/- only. It is further alleged that he deposited Rs.11,000/- on 09.08.2016, Rs.15,000/- on 05.06.2015 & Rs.3,000/- on 03.12.2016, total amounting Rs.29,000/- and this amount be deducted. The said bill is wrong, illegal and excessive. 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; locus-standi; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true and material facts are that as per record of SC & AR of Op account No.KN-38-5097 is overhaul at Sr. No.450/206/145; that the complainant paid Rs.15000/- vide receipt No.RO 4No 166/1/96 dt. 05.6.2015, but due to wrongly unpost by Hartron KN-13-5097 bill paid by the consumer, but from actual account No.KN-38-5097 Rs.15,000/- + Rs.1881S/C already waived off, so the complainant has no grievance after this entry of waived off the amount which was wrongly unpost in his account; that Op at any time is ready to rectify any kind of grievance of the complainant, if any and further Op is rightful to recover any kind of consumption charges or amount or arrear outstanding towards the connection in question as per law. 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.C1 to Ex.C5, Mark-CA to Mark-CC and closed evidence on 25.07.2017. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A; documents Mark RA to Mark RC and closed evidence on 20.09.2017.
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 parties, it is not disputed that the complainant is having electricity domestic connection bearing account No.X52-KN38-5097. The dispute between the parties is with regard to bill dt. 07.12.2016 amounting to Rs.30,673/- (Ex.C3). Ld. counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the said bill is wrong, illegal and excessive. He further contended that the complainant has deposited Rs.11,000/- on 09.08.2016, Rs.15,000/- on 05.06.2015 & Rs.3,000/- on 03.12.2016, total amounting Rs.29,000/- and this amount be deducted from his account. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Ops contended that the complainant had paid Rs.15000/- vide receipt No.RO 4No 166/1/96 dt. 05.6.2015, but due to wrongly unpost by Hartron KN-13-5097 bill paid by the consumer, but from actual account No.KN-38-5097 Rs.15,000/- + Rs.1881S/C already waived off on the request of the complainant vide application Mark RA. It is found that the complainant filed an application on 23.12.2016 (Mark CB) before the Ops submitting that he intends to deposit the electricity bill. On that application, the Ops rectified the bill of the complainant and adjusted total surcharge of Rs.13445/- and showing balance of Rs.17,227/-. The Ops tendered ledger account statement of the account of complainant and as per that ledger account statement, the complainant paid Rs.11,000/- on 09.08.2016 & Rs.3,000/- on 03.12.2016, before the filing of application of deposit the bill without interest + surcharge dt. 23.12.2015. The complainant moved another application (Mark RA) before the Ops submitting that he has deposited Rs.15,000/- on 05.6.2015, but this amount was not adjusted in his account. On this application, the Ops traced the account of the complainant (Mark RB) and after the tracing; the account of the complainant bearing No. KN-38-5097 is overhauled at Sr. No.450/206/145 with this report. The Ops further waived off the excess amount of Rs.15,000/- and so, the complainant has no grievance after this entry of waived off the amount, which was wrongly unpost in his account. Therefore, there is no momentum of force in the submissions of ld. counsel for the complainant. So, we find that the bill in question issued to the complainant is 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.09.11.2017.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
