Haryana

StateCommission

A/771/2018

YOGDHAYAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT GOSWAMI

13 Dec 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.771 of 2018

                                                 Date of Institution: 15.06.2018

                                                        Date of Final Hearing: 13.12.2022

Date of pronouncement: 09.03.2023

 

Yogdhayan S/o Shri Darai Lal aged 55 years R/o H.No. 166/13
Extension, Urban Estate, Karnal.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Shakti Bhawan Sector-6, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

2.      Sub Divisional Officer OP UHBVN Ltd. Sub Urban Division, Karnal.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Rohit Goswami, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Ms. Alka Joshi, Advocate for the respondents.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 65 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.

2.      The present appeal No.771 of 2018 has been filed against the impugned order dated 07.03.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (In short  now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.304 of 2016, which was dismissed.

3.       The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having domestic electricity connection (DS) bearing account No.5281220000 and has been paying the bill regularly. The sanctioned load of this connection was 5.40 KW. However complainant felt that he has been receiving excessive bills in comparison to his actual usage he moved an application before opposite party No.2 to replace his electric meter. As per his request the JE visited the site and reported that meter installed in premises of complainant was OK.  But still he was not satisfied with the report and applied for installing a parallel check meter, which was installed in February, 2016 and after removal of the check meter, the readings both of the meter were found to be same.  Therefore, OPs refused to correct the account of complainant.  Then he received a bill for the period from 23.4.2016 to 23.06.2016 for Rs.85331/- vide which an amount of Rs.6605/- shown as current energy charges and an amount of Rs.76091.59 was shown as previous balance and Rs.17266/- was due bill for the month of 23.12.2015 to 23.02.2016.  On 29.07.2016,  the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.30,000/- out of Rs.85331/- under protest.  He again received bill of Rs.54439/-  as previous balance, which was to be payable on 26.09.2016. the above said bill was totally wrong and illegal.  He visited the office of OPs several times and requested them to overhaul his account but OPs did not pay any heed. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence the complaint.

4.      Notice being issued, O.P. filed reply.   It was submitted that reading of the check meter and the meter installed for computing his consumption were almost same and as such there was no reason for replacing his meter. But afterwards as per policy of the Government, the meter installed at the premises of the complainant has been replaced.  As per the reading, the bill was issued from the period 23.04.2016 to 23.06.2016.  There was no assurance about overhauling account given to him.   The bill for the month of  23.06.2016 to 31.08.2016 was rightly and legally issued for his consumption during the indicated period.  The complainant requested them to deposit the amount in installments, he was allowed to deposit the said amount lump sum. Thus there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint as prayed for.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Karnal dismissed the complaint vide order dated 07.03.2018.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal for setting aside the impugned order after accepting this appeal.

7.      These argument were advanced by Sh.Rohit Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Smt.Alka Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance entire records including that of the District Commission and evidence led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

8.      It is not disputed that the complainant was having domestic electricity connection with the OP. It is also not disputed that his electric meter was replaced. It is also not disputed that reading of the check meter as well as the already installed meter were almost the same so there was no question to replace the meter as his apprehension was found to be misplaced.  Perusal of Ex. R-1 which shows that the complainant was not satisfied with the checking and he requested the department to install the check meter.  Perusal of Ex.R-2 the report of check meter, which shows that the difference between the  meter and check meter was that only of 7 units.  It was almost the same units.

9.      This Commission does not concur with the submission made on behalf of the appellants that the outstanding bill was wrongly issued by the OP before overhauling of his account as there is no material on record to prove this fact.    The OP has rightly issued the electricity bill to the complainant. Learned District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant.

10.    Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, appeal  stands dismissed on merits.

11. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

12.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.    File be consigned to record room.

 

09th  March, 2023   Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member    

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)