BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 380 of 2019                                                                    

                                                           Date of Institution :          18.07.2019                                                                          

                                                                 Date of Decision   :         10.01.2023.

Ranbir deceased son of Rameshwar now through his legal representatives 1. Vidhya Devi widow, 2. Rajesh Kumar, 3. Ved Pal, 4. Ashok Kumar sons of Ranbir son of Rameshwar, aged 55 years, resident of village Kairanwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa. Mobile No.94164-39921.

           ……Complainant.

                                                Versus.

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Division T-24, Nathusari District Sirsa.

2. Executive Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

3. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd through Managing Director, Hisar.

..…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. Vinod Beniwal, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties.

ORDER

                        Initially on 18.07.2019 present complaint was filed by complainant Ranbir and after his death on 26.08.2019, his above said legal representatives have been impleaded on his behalf.

2.       In brief, the case of complainant is that he is a farmer and has domestic connection bearing No. SN29-1820 in his house. That since February, 2019 complainant is depositing amount of electricity bills continuously. Thereafter in March, 2019 op no.1 replaced his meter and suddenly in the month of April, 2019 issued bill of the amount of Rs.61,939/- to him and in this bill only 74 units have been shown and no other detail has been given in this bill. It is further averred that complainant requested the ops to correct the said bill but they refused in this regard and stated that he has to deposit the amount of the said bill otherwise his connection will be disconnected. That thereafter also complainant requested the ops several times to correct the wrong bill but op no.1 did not pay any heed to the same. Hence, this complaint.

3.       On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, no cause of action, estoppal etc. On merits, it is submitted that it is incorrect that op no.1 issued a wrong bill to the complainant for demanding Rs.61,939/- in bill for the month of April, 2019 rather in fact it was correctly issued to the complainant. As a matter of fact since August, 2017 due to meter block burnt, the meter reader was wrongly noting down the reading of the meter of the complainant as after reading of 9950 for the month of June, 2017 he wrongly noted down the reading as 186 instead of actual reading for the month of August, 2017 and this mistake was continued up to month December 2018 and when in the month of February 2019, the exact reading of 11704 was noted down, then the aforesaid mistake of meter reader came into the knowledge of the ops. Then bills were issued to the complainant as well as amount paid by the complainant regularly to the Nigam was adjusted w.e.f. August 2017 to February, 2019 from reading 9950 to 11704 units KWH. It is further submitted that thereafter on detecting the said problem in the meter, the officials of the Nigam replaced the old meter of the complainant with new one in compliance of Meter Change Order No. 4493 dated 19.03.2019 and at that time of removing the old meter, its reading was noted down as 19721 and thus on the basis of difference between the reading 11704 to 19721 the complainant was served with the bill for the month of March 2019 for 8091 units amounting to Rs.61,939/- which is correct and there is no fault or defect in the meter. The complainant failed to pay the consumption charges and he is bound to pay the said consumption charges of the actual consumed units. It is further submitted that complainant did not deposit even a single penny to the ops Nigam despite several demands made by the Nigam officials. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.       The parties then led their respective evidence.

5.       Learned counsel for complainant has tendered affidavit of Rajesh Kumar son of Ranbir complainant Ex.CW1/A, copies of bills Ex.C1, Ex.C2, death certificate of Ranbir Singh complainant Ex.C3, notice dated 6.12.2019 for checking of the meter in M&T Lab Ex.C4, again affidavit of Rajesh Kumar  Ex.C5.

6.       On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Vikas Malik, SDO Ex.RW1/A, detail of account of complainant Ex.R1, copy of photograph of meter Ex.R2 and meter change order Ex.R3.

7.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

8.       Learned counsel for complainant contended that ops all of sudden issued the bill of exaggerated amount in the month of April, 2019 to the tune of Rs.61,939/- which is wrong and illegal and same has caused mental tension and harassment to the complainant. Prior to it, ops replaced the meter of the complainant in the month of March, 2019 but in the month of April, 2019, the bill to the tune of Rs.61,939/- has been issued against 74 units consumed by complainant and complainant is not liable to pay the said amount being illegally claimed from him and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

9.       On the other hand, learned counsel for ops has contended that due to meter block burnt, the Meter Reader had wrongly noted down reading of the meter of the complainant as after reading of 9950 for the month of June, 2017, he had wrongly noted down the reading as 186 instead of actual reading for the month of August, 2017 and this mistake continued up to month of December, 2018. He has further contended that when in the month of February, 2019 the exact reading of 11704 was noted down, then the aforesaid mistake of meter reader came into the knowledge of the ops and then bills issued to the complainant and the amount paid by the complainant was adjusted w.e.f. August, 2017 to February, 2019 from reading 9950 to 11704 units. He has further contended that thereafter , the officials of the ops replaced the old meter of the complainant with new one on 19.03.2019 and at the time of removing the old meter, its reading was noted down as 19721 units and above said bill was rightly issued to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.     We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.     In order to prove the complaint, Sh. Rajesh Kumar son of Ranbir Singh deceased has furnished his affidavits Ex. CW1/A as well as Ex.C5 and has placed on file copies of bills Ex.C1, Ex.C2, copy of death certificate of his father Ex.C3 and notice bearing no. 593 dated 6.12.2019 for testing of the meter issued by the ops. In the disputed bill dated 06.04.2019 Ex.C2 which has been issued for the amount of Rs.61,939/- total consumed units have been shown as 8091 whereas as per reading of new meter only 74 units have been consumed from 28.01.2019 to 28.03.2019 and the said bill dated 06.04.2019 has been issued after change of old meter. However, in the said bill, there is no mention of 19721 units recorded in the old meter as alleged by ops. In the detail Ex.R1, the meter reading has been shown in the month of February, 2017 as new reading 9800 and old reading as 9712 and complainant consumed 88 units for the month of February, 2017. Then in the month of April, 2017, consumed units by complainant have been shown as 73 units for two months. Thereafter, in the month of June, consumed units by complainant have been shown as 77 for two months and at that time new reading has been shown as 9950 units and old reading was shown was 9873 units and as such the consumed units for two months were 77. Thereafter, in the month of August, 2017 although old reading has been shown as 9950 units but new reading has been shown only as 186 units and according to the ops since August, 2017 due to meter block burnt, the meter reader was wrongly noting down the reading of the meter of the complainant as after reading of 9950 for the month of June, 2017, he wrongly noted down the reading as 186 instead of actual reading for the month of August, 2017 and this mistake continued up to month December, 2018 and when in the month of February, 2019, the exact reading of 11704 was noted down, then the aforesaid mistake of meter reader came into the knowledge of the ops and then bills issued to the complainant as well as amount paid by the complainant regularly to the Nigam was adjusted w.e.f. August, 2017 to February, 2019 from reading 9950 to 11704 units. Learned counsel for ops further contended that when meter was replaced, its reading was of 19721 units and only then bill was issued for 8091 units i.e. 8017 of difference of units plus 71 units consumed during the month of April, 2019. So, the ops have themselves admitted that old reading was 9950 units and when the mistake of meter reader came into their knowledge, then in the month of February, 2019 the exact reading of 11704 units was noted down. So, even if the version of the ops is believed that meter reader wrongly noted down the reading, even then difference of actual units comes to 1754 units only as upto June, 2017 the old reading was 9950 units which was rightly noted down by the meter reader and ops have themselves admitted that after coming to know of the mistake of meter reader, the officials of the ops noted the exact reading as 11704 units and after changing of the meter, the complainant consumed 74 units.

12.     Further, the ops again changed their own stand. They have submitted that on 19.03.2019 at the time removing of old meter, its reading was noted down as 19721 and thus on the basis of difference between the reading 11704 to 19721, the complainant was served with bill for the month of March, 2019 for 8091 units amounting to Rs.61939/-. Admittedly, the meter was replaced on 19.03.2019 but old meter has not been got checked/ tested by ops in the presence of complainant. No notice before testing of the meter in M&T Laboratory was given to the complainant. The said checking of the meter was done on 27.03.2019. The complainant has also placed on file a notice dated 6.12.2019 Ex.C4 issued by ops for testing of the meter in M&T Laboratory, but that notice has been given to the complainant after filing of the present complaint whereas no notice of checking of the meter in M&T Laboratory on 27.3.2019 was given to the complainant. When the ops have taken a categorical stand that when in the month of February, 2019, the exact reading of 11704 was noted down then ops cannot again say that after removal of meter the actual reading was of 19721 units when the meter has not been got tested in the presence of complainant or in the presence of his any representative and even no notice of the checking was ever issued to the complainant or to his representative. So, the photostat copy of photograph of the meter showing 19721 units cannot be related to the complainant as meter number SN29-1820 has been over written on the photograph with pen. So, the report of M&T Lab showing 19721 units also suffers from ambiguity and is not sustainable in the eyes of law when earlier ops admitted that actual reading was 11704 units and then have changed their stand that actual reading was 19721 units. When in the month of February, 2019, the units were 11704 as alleged by ops themselves, therefore, in the month of April, 2019, complainant would not have consumed such exaggerated amount of 8091 units. The possibility of getting wrong report about units of the meter or possibility of tampering with the meter cannot be ruled out. Moreover, a meter is tested in the presence of consumer in the Laboratory immediately after its removal just within two days as per own circular of the ops but in the present case no notice was given to the consumer before testing of the meter and when complainant filed this complaint, then only notice dated 6.12.2019 for testing of the meter was given to the complainant and by that time the complainant already died. In these circumstances, the impugned bill issued to the complainant for the amount of Rs.61,939/- for 8091 units is liable to be set aside and withdrawn. In this regard we also found support from the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as Tagore Public School, Agar Nagar, Ludhiana vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. AIR 2010 Punjab and Haryana 22 in which it has been held that “Once that is so, the meter was not giving correct reading, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for a period of five years. Section 26(6) of the Act specifically states that in such a situation, electrical quantity supplied cannot be quantified for a period exceeding six months. Therefore, there is no doubt that section 26(6) of the Act limits the liability of the consumer only for a period of six months.” The above said authority is also applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case. The ops are only entitled to recover amount of 1828 (1754+74) units from the legal heirs of deceased Ranbir Singh and that too at the minimum rates of Rs.2.70 per unit as ops remained silent for a period of about 22 months i.e. from August, 2017 to February, 2019 in knowing the mistake of the meter reader and never bothered to change their meter and had wrongly issued bills to the complainant. Therefore, complainant cannot be allowed to suffer for the mistake of the ops and he cannot be charged at the higher rate of units    

13.     In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint and the impugned bill is hereby set aside. We direct the opposite parties to issue a fresh bill only for 1828 units (11704-9950 =1754 +74 units ) at the rate of Rs.2.70 to the present complainants (legal heirs of deceased Ranbir Singh complainant) and the amount if any deposited by complainant prior to filing of present complaint or after filing of present complaint in lieu of said impugned bill will be adjusted against the future bills. We also direct the ops to pay Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainants. The ops are liable to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 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: 10.01.2023.                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                                          Redressal Commission, Sirsa.