BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.172/17.
Date of instt.: 28.6.2017.
Date of Decision:23.01.2018.
Vinod Kumari w/o Shri Pawan Kumar, r/o House No.501, Sector 20, HUDA, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- UHBVN through its Secretary, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.
- The XEN, OP Div. No.2, UHBVN, Distt. Kaithal.
- The SDO, S/Div. No.2, UHBVN, Distt. Kaithal.
- Pardeep Kumar, JE, S/Div. No.2, UHBVN, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present: Shri Anurag Gupta, 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 she is having an electric connection bearing No.7900200000 (Old No.2122203UKA202117) which is installed at her premises. It is further alleged that she received a bill dt. 07.11.2015 for Rs.40,148/-. It is further alleged that on 23.11.2015, OP No.4 came to her house and threatened to disconnect the electricity connection and OP No.4 demanded Rs.40,000/- with an assurance that he will deposit the bill amount with OPs No.1 to 3 and she gave Rs.40,000/- to OP No.4. It is further alleged that thereafter, she did not receive any electricity bill from OPs. It is further alleged that she recently received bill dt. 8.5.2017 for Rs.1,11,848/- from OPs. It is further alleged that the installed connection at her premises is a domestic connection and its sanctioned load is 8.89 KW, although the actual load is much less than the sanctioned load. It is further alleged that she visited the OPs office many for correction of electricity bill as well as change of the meter, but OPs failed to redress her grievance without any reason. 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 and jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the true & material facts from this Forum. The true and material facts are that sanctioned load of said electric connection is 8.89 KW and in the month of November 2015, bill of Rs.40,148/- was issued to the complainant on average basis consumption on which as per her grievance vide MCO No.12/650 dt. 27.12.2015, her meter was changed and after that, her bill is issued as per regular reading of above said connection; as per ledger record, her previous reading & consumption charges were overhauled and in September 2016, only Rs.35,000/- is paid by the complainant; that although her regular consumption bill were issued on her address but she did not pay the same and due to non payment of regular electricity consumption bill by the complainant Rs.1,15,134/- were outstanding in May 2017 towards her. 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 C4 and closed evidence on 06.10.2017. On the other hand, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A; documents Ex.R1 & R2, Mark R1 to R3 and closed evidence on 27.11.2017.
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. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is having an electricity connection bearing No.7900200000 (Old No.2122203UKA202117) installed at her premises. The dispute between the parties is with regard to bill dt. 08.5.2017 amounting to Rs.1,11843/- (Ex.C2). The ld. counsel for the complainant contended that when the complainant received a bill dt. 07.11.2015 for Rs.40,148/- from OPs, they paid Rs.40,000/- to OP No.4 on his demand to be deposited against the said bill of Rs.40,148/- and to avoid disconnection of her electricity connection and thereafter the complainant did not receive any electricity bill from the OPs. But this contention of the complainant has no force, because the complainant could not produce any receipt or document, by which, it could be proved that she paid Rs.40,000/- to the OP No.4 for depositing the bill amount with OPs No.1 to 3. For the sake of discussion, if this allegation of the complainant is believed, then the complainant has to take legal action u/s 409 of IPC against the OP No.4 before the Civil Court. But the complainant neither do so nor paid the impugned bill of Rs.1,11,843/- with OPs. The ld. counsel for the OPs contended that in November 2015, OPs issued a bill amounting Rs.40,148/- and on grievance of the complainant, they changed her old meter vide MCO No.12/650 dt. 27.10.2015 as EX.R1. Ld. counsel for the OPs produced copy of account statement of the complainant as Ex.R2. Perusal of said document shows that the complainant has only paid Rs.6637/- on 04.8.2014 and Rs.35,000/- on 07.9.2016 and a balance of Rs.1,11,843/- showing outstanding against her till 05/2017. So, we are of the considered view that the complainant is a chronic defaulter of UHBVN, who is not paying her electricity bills regularly and as per her account statement, an amount of Rs.1,11,843/- is showing outstanding against her till May 2017. We find that bills of Rs.1,11,843/- 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. (Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Dt.23.1.2018. Member. Presiding Member.
Present: Shri Anurag Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Shri J.P. Jaglan, 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:23.01.2018. Member Presiding Member.
