Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/105/2017

Vinod Kumar S/o Yash Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman UHBVN LTd. - Opp.Party(s)

Neeraj Rajoria

08 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

                                                                                   Complaint No.105 of 2017.

                                                                                    Date of Institution:7.3.2017.

                                                                                    Date of Decision:8.9.2017.

 

Vinod Kumar son of Sh.Yashpal resident of House No.2027, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagahdri, tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                 

                                                                                                             …Complainant.                                                         

                                         Versus

 

1.         Chairman, UHBVNL Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2.         Superintending Engineer, UHBVNL, Sub Division, Model Town, Dushehra Ground, Yamuan Nagar.

3.         Executive Engineer, UHBVNL, Sub Division, Model Town, Dushehra Ground, Yamuna Nagar.

4.         SDO op Sub Division City Jagadhri (Sub Urban), Jagadhri.

 

                                                                                                              ..Respondents.         

 

Before: SH. SATPAL …………….    PRESIDENT

            SH. S.C. SHARMA  …………………………MEMBER.

            SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, ………...MEMBER

 

Present: Sh.Neeraj Rajouria, Advocate for complainant.

              Sh.Balinder Singh, Advocate, for respondents.

 

ORDER   :       (SATPAL, PRESIDENT).

 

1.                     The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter the respondents shall be referred as OPs). 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint as alleged by the complainant are that the complainant is consumer of the Ops having electric connection No.2151402UJU215675 (old) new account No.6495190000 and he has been paying the bills regularly.  The officials of the Ops are taking the reading from the house of the complainant regularly and the electricity meter of the complainant is installed outside the premises of the complainant.  In the month of July-2015, the actual consumption was 1479 units, in Oct-2015, the units consumed were 2338, in Feb.2016 units were 3031, in April-2016 units were 755, in June 2016 the units were 1034 and in August 2014 the units were 1583 which were duly paid by the complainant.  The complainant received the bill dated 19.10.2016 for a period from 3.8.2016 to 3.10.2016 in which 9780 units have been shown as consumed for Rs.83623/-.  The complainant never used the electricity consumption of such huge quantity and the bill in question is wrong and inflated one and it is amply clear that the meter of the complainant became faulty and began to run very fast.  On receiving the above said bill the complainant moved an application to the Ops stating that his meter has become defective and is running very fast or jumping.  Accordingly, on 3.11.2016 the complainant deposited Rs.530/- so that the new meter could be installed and old meter be removed.   On 3.11.2016 itself, the official of the Ops visited the premises of the complainant and removed the old meter and installed a new meter on the pole.  Moreover, the sanctioned load was also checked by the officials of the Ops and  it was also found correct.  The complainant also deposited Rs.25000/- under protest as part payment.  When the application for change of meter was moved on 3.11.2016 up till then one month had already elapsed and the defective and jumping meter continued installed in the premises of the complainant up to 3.11.2016.  During this one month i.e. 3.10.2016 to 3.11.2016 because of defective meter the units consumed were shown in the bill dated 8.2.2017 for the period from 3.10.2016 to 3.11.2016 as 10,413/- which was quite abnormal and because of jumping of the reading of electricity meter.  After installing the new meter the bill dated 17.2.2017 from 4.11.2016 to 3.2.2017 had shown the units consumed as 1551 being actual consumption of the electricity in the premises.  It is further alleged that the meter of the complainant was also sent to the laboratory of the Ops for checking and the complainant was also called, which was duly checked in the presence of the complainant and M & T seals were found intact.  The SDOs and other officials of the Ops at the spot informed the complainant that the meter is running fast and its reading is abnormal and is jumping, therefore, they will mention this facts in their report also.  Accordingly, the SDO Ashish Chopra and Pardeep Chaudhary asked the complainant to sign on a proforma of their checking report and stated that they will later on fill the same as the numerous meters are to be checked and they will fill the blank column of the proforma at one and same time and to save the time of the consumers they were obtaining signature on those black proforma and will later after filling those proforma were sending to the relevant sub station. To the utter surprise, the complainant on the next day i.e. on 8.11.2016 went to the OP No.3 to know the status report but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other.  The SDO called the complainant to give the photocopy of checking report and Sukhwinder Singh gave the photocopy of checking report as well as photocopy of bill dated 8.2.2017 for Rs.1,12,489.32ps.  The complainant had gone through the checking report wherein it was mentioned that “accuracy of the meter could not be checked as working is dead stop”.  When as per bill dated 7.11.2016 and 8.2.2017 huge units has been shown to be consumed then how the meter could be said dead stop.  The complainant is liable to pay the bills on average basis from the period from 3.8.2016 to 3.11.2016 and an amount of Rs.1,55,859/- as has been shown under the head of sundry charges is wrong and illegal and prayed for acceptance of complaint by directing the Ops to quash the bills dated 19.10.2016, 8.2.2017, 17.2.2017 and to charge the bill for the period from 3.8.2016 to 3.11.2016 on average of previous months and to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, and harassment. 

3.                     Upon notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; the complainant has not come to this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands; the complainant has consumed 9780 units during the period from 3.8.2016 to 3.10.2016 and the Ops have issued the bill amounting to Rs.83,623/- to the complainant as per actual consumption and actual reading of the meter.  The complainant paid Rs.20000/- out of aforesaid amount of Rs.83,623/- and a sum of Rs.66,088/- remains due against him including surcharge of Rs.2465/-.  Thereafter, the Ops issued bill in the month of December 2016 for 5682 units on average basis amounting to Rs.46,401/- as the reading was not taken.  The complainant has not deposited the bill issued to him in the month of December-2016.  Thereafter, the reading was taken and the meter had shown consumed units as 10413 units and deducted a sum of Rs.46,401/- from the account of the complainant on account of bill issued to him on average basis due to RNT (Reading not taken) in the month of December-2016.  The complainant moved an application for checking the accuracy of the meter and on his request the meter was removed vide LL1 No.25/7145, dated 3.11.2016 and checked in the M&T lab Yamuna Nagar on 7.11.2016 and found that (1) accuracy of the meter could not be checked as working is dead stop (2) opened the meter and no malpractice has been found in the meter.  Meaning thereby the meter was working properly prior to dead stop.  On merits controvert the plea taken by the complainant and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

4.                     To prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complaint as annexure C/A, documents such as copy of bill dated 19.10.2016 as annexure C.1, copy of checking report dated 3.11.2016, copy of bill dated 8.2.2017 as annexure C.3, copy of bill dated 17.2.2017 as annexure C.4, copy of checking report of meter as annexure C.5and closed the evidence on behalf of the Ops.

5.                     On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Pardeep Chaudhary SDO as annexure R/A and documents such as copy of checking report dated 31.1.2017 as annexure R.1, copy of application dated 25.1.2017 as annexure R.2, copy of checking report of meter as annexure R.3, copy of MCO dated 3.11.2016 as annexure R.4, copy of checking report dated 3.11.2016 as annexure R.5, copy of ledger as annexure R.6, copy of letter dated 2.3.2017 as annexure R.7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. 

6.                     After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, it is clear that the complainant is consumer of the Ops and has been paying the bills regularly.  As per annexure R.6 i.e.copy of ledger the detail of consumption of the complainant is as under:-

Month	Old Reading	New Reading	Consumed Units
May-15	42010	42963	953
Jul-15	42963	44442	1480
Oct.-15	44442	46780	2338
Feb-16	46780	49811	3031
Apr-16	49811	50566	755
Jun-16	50566	51600	1034
Aug-16	51600	53183	1583
Oct-16	53183	62963	9780
Dec-16	62963	RNT(Reading not taken)	5682
Feb-17	62963	73376	10413
Feb-17	00	1551	1551

 

The plea taken by the Ops that the bills have been issued as per actual consumption charges is not tenable because if the bill were OK and issued as per actual consumption charges then what was the need for the complainant to move an application to the Ops and what was need for the Ops to get the meter checked from the laboratory.   From the perusal of trend of consumption of electricity as shown in the above table/chart, it is evident that the consumption of electricity by the complainant never exceeded 3031 units up to Feb-2016.  However, there is steep rise in the meter reading from October-2016 to February-2017 which has not been explained by the Ops and as such the alleged exorbitant consumption of electricity from October-2016 to February-2017, seems to be the result of fault in the meter i.e. jumping of meter.  The Ops have not bothered to redress the genuine grievances of the complainant and compelled him to file this present complaint which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops..

                        In view of the above discussion, no doubt the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is proved but the total bill of the complainant cannot not be waived off, and it will be justifiable to direct the Ops to overhaul the account of the complainant as the loss to the exchequer of the State Government is involved which can not be brushed aside. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that if the maximum consumption i.e. 3031 units bi-monthly is taken as a base to overhaul the account of the complainant for the disputed period, it will be fair, reasonable and justifiable. we therefore, direct the Ops to overhaul the account of the complainant for the disputed period from October-2016 to February-2017 @ 3031 units bi-monthly by taking the same as base and issue the fresh bill without surcharge to the complainant within one month from the date of preparation of this order.  However, the complainant is directed to pay the amount as per fresh bill to be issued by the Ops within one month from the date of receipt of such fresh bill.  Further it is made clear, that if, any amount is found deposited by the complainant towards this period he same be adjusted in the bill of the complainant and after that if any amount found recoverable the same be recovered and if any excess amount is found, the same be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant.  Complaint stands disposed off accordingly.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs.  File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court:8.9.2017.                       

                

                                                                                                (SATPAL)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

                         (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                (S.C. SHARMA)

                          MEMBER.                                                  MEMBER.