Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/37/2023

Kanta Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVN through its Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ravinder Kumar

02 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI. 

                                                          Complaint No.: 37 of 2023.

                                                         Date of Institution: 02.03.2023.

                                                          Date of Order: 02.01.2024.

Kanta Devi wife of Shri Jai Bhagwan, resident of village Chhapar, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.

                                                                   …..Complainant.

                    Versus

1. Managing Director, D H B V N, Vidhyut Nagar, Hisar.
2. Deputy G. M. (Executive Engineer), D.H.B.V.N., Charkhi Dadri.
3. A. G. M. (S.D.O.), D.H.B.V.N., Sub Division B36, Atela Kalan, District Charkhi Dadri.

…...Opposite Parties.

 

                   COMPLAINT UNDER THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

                  

Present:       Shri Ravinder Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Devender Singh Parmar, Advocate for the OPs.

 

ORDER:-

                   Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having electricity connection No. B36-CH1D-1343 with sanctioned load of 2.00 KW and paying the bills regularly.  It is averred that all of sudden the OPs have issued bill dated 25.7.2022 for an amount of Rs.1,84,166/- showing consumed units 25084 (New 28673 - old 3589).  It is further averred that the complainant visited the office of OP No.3 and requested to correct the bill and also moved an application dated 8.8.2022 for the same, but to no effect, rather again issued a wrong bill dated 27.9.2022 for an amount of Rs. 2,02,776/- showing consumed units 1807 (New 30480 & old 28673) by adding an amount of Rs. 1,89,509.35/- as arrears.  It is further averred that the complainant has visited the office of the OPs for several times with the request to correct the wrong bill, but again no action was taken by them.  It is further averred that the meter shown 25084 consumed units in bill dated 25.7.2022 for two months and again shown 1807 consumed units in bill dated 27.9.2022 for two months period due to jump/fault in the meter. It is further averred that the complainant has deposited a fee of Rs. 1160/- on dated 21.9.2022 with the OPs as cost of new meter/meter testing fee to replace the old meter.  It is further averred that the complainant has requested to install a “check meter” to know that meter was faulty or not, but OPs instead of installing check meter have installed new meter in the month of September, 2022 by removing old meter.  It is further alleged that complainant has requested the OPs to check the old meter, but to no effect.  It is further averred that the OPs have adjusted an amount of Rs.67,760.85/- and issued a bill dated 1.12.2022 for Rs. 1,41,609/-, which is also wrong and illegal.  It is further averred that new meter shown 163 units for two months, which shows that old meter was defective.  It is further averred that the OPs were requested many times to correct the bills of the complainant by taking 6 months average of new meter, but they did not pay any heed towards her request, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                On appearance, the OPs filed contested written statement alleging therein that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide a complaint filed by a consumer of electricity as assessment of the duty for unauthorized use of electricity, tempering of meter, distributions of meter and calibration of electric current being technical nature matter.  It is further averred that the dispute relating to theft/ dishonest abstraction of electric energy is not a consumer dispute and no complaint lies under the Act before any Commission and is not subject matter of proceedings under this Act.  It is further averred that the bills issued by OPs department are right and as per unit consumed.  It is further averred that the meter of the consumer was defective and was not functioning properly and on complainant’s request, the OPs have installed a new meter by removing old one.  It is further averred that the complainant has never visited the office of the OPs and OPs department never assured her to correct the bills.  It is further averred that OPs have already corrected the electricity bills of the complainant, as per Rules and Electricity Act.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant to prove his case placed on record the duly sworn affidavit of the complainant as Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C1 to C10 and closed the evidence. 

4.                 Ld. Counsel for the OPs in support of its case has placed on record the duly sworn affidavit as Ex. RW1/A documents Annexure R1 and closed the evidence.

5.                 We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties at length and gone through the case file very carefully.

6.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant has filed the written arguments and reiterated the contents of the complaint.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant has contended that bills dated 25.7.2022 Ex. C6 & dated 27.9.2022 Ex. C7 issued by the OPs are wrong and liable to be set aside, as the old meter of the complainant has become faulty and started jumping.  Ld. Counsel for complainant has further contended that bill dated 1.12.2022 is also wrong and liable to be set aside, as the account of the complainant has not been overhauled by the OPs by taking 6 months average consumption of new meter.  He further contended that the new meter was installed on 5.9.2022 and the total consumption as per the new meter of the complainant as on 11.10.2023 is 2473.5 units i.e. for a period of one year, one month and 7 days, which shows the average consumption of complainant is about 200 units per month.  He has further contended that the OPs have failed to place on record meter testing report, any checking report, photographs or copy of notice given to the complainant for tempering of meter and unauthorized use electricity, theft of electricity etc. despite deposit of meter testing fee by the complainant.  He further argued that the complainant has visited the office of the OPs many times and also moved an application dated 8.8.2022 for correction of her bill.  He further contended that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint with costs.

7.                On the other hand, ld. counsel for OPs reiterated the contents of the written statement. Ld. Counsel for the OPs has contended that the meter of the consumer was defective and was not functioning properly and on complainant’s request, the OPs have installed a new meter by removing old one.  Ld. Counsel for the OPs has further contended that the bills issued by OPs department are right and as per unit consumption shown by old meter of the complainant.  Ld. Counsel for OPs has further contended that the OPs have already corrected the electricity bills of the complainant, as per Rules and Electricity Act.  He further contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. 

8.                After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material/facts and documents available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint in hand deserves acceptance, because there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  It is admitted by the OPs in their written statement that the meter of the complainant was faulty/defective and hence, they replaced the same with new one.  But the OPs have failed to get tested the old meter in laboratory to show any unauthorized use of electricity and tempering of meter by the complainant.  The plea of the complainant is also the same that her meter becomes defective and the same jumps due to defect and shown 25084 consumed units for two months period.  In our view, it is not possible to consume 25084 units in a month by the meter of a domestic consumer.  Moreover, the OPs have not get tested the old meter from a laboratory to show any fault on the part of complainant and also to show unauthorized use of electricity or tempering of meter by the complainant and in the absence of meter testing report, it cannot be said that complainant was using electricity unauthorizedly.  The OPs have taken the plea of tempering of meter & unauthorized use of electricity by the complainant, but they have failed in proving this plea by leading some cogent & convincing documentary evidence.  So, this plea of the OPs cannot be believed, because no party can be allowed to take an undue advantage of its own acts and conduct and omissions, because the complainant has already deposited the fee for installing new meter and also for testing of old meter on 21.9.2022, as is clear from Ex. C-10.    

9.                From perusal of record, it is clear that the complainant has fully proved his case by placing on record certain documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C10.  It is proved on record that the complainant has moved an application dated 8.8.2022 Ex. C9 to OPs for correction of her bills.  It reveals from the bills placed on file as Ex. C1 to C5 for the period from 5^th July, 2021 to 5^th May, 2022 that the aggregate consumption is 838 units in 10 months and based on which monthly average consumption arrives at 84 units approximately.  In contradiction to the same, the consumed units for the period from 5.5.2022 to 5.7.2022 turned exorbitantly to 25084 units in two months.  Similarly, the bill for the period from 5.7.2022 to 5.9.2022 was issued for 1807 units for another two months.  In this way, the average monthly consumption in these two bills for 4 months period arrives at 6723 units per month (against previous average of 84 units per month), which is not possible at all in a domestic connection.  It clearly proves that the old meter was faulty.  Further, average units consumed arrive at 122 units per month, as evident from bill dated 1.12.2022 (Ex. C8) issued for the period from 5.9.2022 to 5.11.2022 for 244 units, after installation of the new meter.  So after considering all the above mentioned important issues, we came to the conclusion that the OPs liable for errors & negligence committed on their part.  It is the bounden duty of the OPs to get check the functioning of old meter of the complainant in her presence, after giving prior notice to her, but the OPs have failed in testing the old meter.  Moreover, from the perusal of Ex. C1 to C5, it is clearly established on record that the complainant was regular in depositing bills for consumed units as per bills issued by the OPs from time to time.  Further, the complainant is ready to deposit the payment of disputed bills for the period from 5.5.2022 to 5.9.2022 based on average consumed units, as per consumption of units shown by new meter installed by the OPs, which is quite justified.  So, it is clearly proved on record that the complainant has put her all efforts for correction of bills, but the OPs are delayed the same on one pretext or the other.  Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, as they have failed in Redressal of grievance of the complainant i.e. correcting the bills of complainant and overhaul her account as per the consumption shown by new meter.

10.              Moreover, the OPs have deliberately does not settle the requests of the complainants in time and harassed her without any reason.  So, in our view, complainant is also entitled for compensation on account of mental, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Therefore, in view of facts and circumstances mentioned above, complaint of the complainant is allowed and the bills dated 25.7.2022, 27.9.2022 and 1.12.2022 are hereby declared as null, void and set aside.  The OPs are directed:-

i)        To overhaul the account of complainant w.e.f. June, 2022 to till date by taking 6 months average consumption shown by the new meter without adding/charging any surcharge by adjusting the amount, if any deposited by the complainant and to issue correct bills.

ii)       To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to deficiency in service & mal trade practice on the part of OPs and punitive damages.

iii)      To pay Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only) as the litigation charges.

          The compliance of the order shall be made within 45 days from the date of the order.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.