BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 117 of 2020
Date of Institution : 03.03.2020
Date of Decision : 24.11.2022.
Jeet Ram, aged 53 years son of Shri Tek Chand, resident of village Mangala, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Managing Director at Hisar.
2. Executive Engineer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, ‘OP’ City Division, Sirsa.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, ‘OP’ Madhosinghana Sub Division, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………….. MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA ……………….MEMBER
Present: Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. S.K. Garg, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment under Section 35 of CP Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that father of complainant Shri Tek Chand was the consumer of ops in respect of domestic electric connection No. SM06-1705 installed at his residential house in village Mangala, Tehsil and District Sirsa. After his death, complainant has been using this electric connection and making payment of consumption charges to the ops. That the sanctioned and connected load of said connection is only 1.00 KW and complainant has installed only five-six lamps, two fans, one washing machine and one refrigerator. The premises of complainant has been inspected by the officials of the Nigam for several times and every time they found the connected load in consonance with the sanctioned load and no abnormality was ever noticed by them. It is further averred that since the complainant is having very meager connected and sanctioned load, therefore, his consumption charges bills have been ranging between Rs.700 to Rs.800/-. That however, in the meantime, the electric meter started recording excessive consumption and thus, complainant was being served with excessive bills. The complainant reported the same to op no.3, whereupon officials of ops inspected his premises and found connected load in consonance with sanctioned load. It is further averred that since the complainant was being served with excessive consumption charges bills, therefore, he could not make payment of the entire billed amount and he was allowed to deposit part payment. He deposited a sum of Rs.5000/- on 27.7.2019 against bill no.01 dated 16.6.2019 and Rs.7,000/- against bill no.01519 dated 23.8.2019. That ops while noticing that his electric meter is not working properly got installed a new meter on 25.7.2019 and thereafter he was served with a bill no.01525 dated 22.10.2019 with old reading as Zero and new reading as 429 units but the ops prepared the bill for 2898 units and thereby served a bill of Rs.35,854/-, which the complainant could not pay and thereafter, he was served with bill no.01526 dated 16.1.2019 for a total sum of Rs.37,989/- and now total amount due against him is of Rs.48,000/-.
3. It is further averred that complainant again visited the op no.3 and inquired about claiming of consumption for 2798 (actually 2898) units as the consumption shown by meter was only 429 units and further requested for withdrawing the impugned amount of sundry charges added in his account, but the op no.3 refused for the same and stated that complainant will have to deposit this amount, otherwise his electric connection would be disconnected. That even after receipt of next bill no.01526 dated 16.12.2019, the complainant approached and requested the op no.3 to do the needful in the matter of resolving of said issue and to withdraw the excess amount, but the op no.3 refused for the same. That now ops are threatening the complainant that in case the payment is not made, then his electric connection would be disconnected and have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and have also caused unnecessary harassment. Hence, this complaint.
4. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding suppression of material facts, the complaint is false, frivolous and is liable to be dismissed with special costs, cause of action, maintainability and that complainant is not consumer of Nigam, so his complaint does not lie in this Commission. On merits, it is submitted that name of complainant is not in the record of Nigam, neither he applied for change of name nor he filed list of legal heirs and death certificate, so he does not fall in the definition of consumer and as per record DS connection a/c no SM-6/1705 stands in the name of Sh. Tek Chand son of Sh. Ranjha Ram. It is denied that complainant has 1 KW sanctioned load and at the time of removal of his meter at reading 15254 on 2.8.2019 connected load was recorded 1.272 KW. It is further submitted that it is not a parameter of always nominal consumption and bill has been issued as per consumption. On 27.6.2019, a complaint of excess reading was lodged by complainant and he was asked to deposit the fee for checking of mater. On deposit of fee of Rs.100/- on 29.07.2019, SJO no.24/225 dated 2.8.2019 was issued at the reading of 15254 as old meter was removed and new meter was installed. After changing the meter, old meter was sent to MT Lab for checking of consumption data and working of said meter. On testing in M&T Lab vide report no.426 dated 4.11.2019 at sr. no.3, M&T Lab tested the meter at reading 12254.9 to 15256.5 and found the meter in permissible limit and OK. Similarly the consumption data sheet was issued of various dates as found on dated 18.4.2019 5.12 KW on 1.5.2019 5.26 KW, on 30.6.2019 5.52 KW and on 13.7.2019 5.42 KW which was used by complainant, so how he can his consumption and load is very meager. He was charged as per consumption. It is submitted that all the bills are issued rightly and genuinely as per reading and consumption of the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copies of bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C11, copy of application dated 01.01.2020 Ex.C12, copy of application dated 20.1.2020 Ex.C13 and bill receipt of the amount of Rs.15,000/- as Ex.C14.
6. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Rajinder Singh, SDO Ex.DA, copy of application form for correction of bill Ex.D1, SJO order Ex.D2, copy of M&T Lab report Ex.D3, billing data report Ex.D4.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
8. The main contention of learned counsel for complainant is that when new meter was installed, the ops had issued bill of the amount of Rs.35,854/- for units of 2898 whereas in the bill it is also mentioned that old units were zero and new units were 429 and therefore, said bill is wrong and illegal. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops contended that old meter was checked in the M&T Lab and when it was removed its reading was 15254 units and new meter was installed. He has further contended that M&T Lab report has been placed on record in which meter was found within permissible limit and therefore bills have been rightly issued on the basis of actual consumption.
9. The complainant has placed on record bill Ex.C4 for the period 28.11.2020 to 28.01.2021 in which it is shown that average units of 154 were consumed in the month of December, 2020 and highest units of 511 were consumed in the month of August, 2020 and the average of the units of five bills of the period from February, 2020 to December, 2020 is not more than 400 units and is of 334 units meaning thereby that complainant was consuming 334 units per bill. The complainant was consuming 334 units in two months per bill after installation of new meter. The ops have not placed on record any detailed report of M&T Lab from which it could be observed that meter was properly functioning and more so in the subsequent bills after change of meter, the average units consumed by complainant for 10 months from February, 2020 to December, 2020 is about 344 units per bill meaning thereby that old meter was defective and was not giving correct reading as in the bill of May-July 2019 the total units consumed were 542 therefore, in the bill of the month of March-May, 2019 consumed units cannot be 2774 which indicates that meter of complainant was not properly functioning and the bill Ex.C8 for the period 25.07.2019 to 25.09.2019 showing 2898 units is totally wrong and incorrect and therefore, account of the complainant deserves to be overhauled by the ops.
10. In view of our above discussion, since electric meter of the complainant was not properly functioning, we allow the present complaint. The opposite parties are directed to overhaul the account of complainant on the basis of bills of the month of December, 2019 to December, 2020 and to issue fresh bill on the average of the units consumed from 12/2019 to 12/2020 i.e. after replacing of the meter. All the previous bills issued by the ops for excessive units are set aside. The amount, if any deposited by the complainant towards impugned bills and the amount, if any deposited by the complainant after filing of present complaint towards the disputed bills shall be adjusted in the fresh bill. However, parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President,
Dated: 24.11.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
