BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 716 of 2019
Date of Institution : 19.12.2019
Date of Decision : 30.10.2023.
Subhash Chand, aged 53 years son of Shri Devi Ram, resident of village Madhosinghana, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Superintending Engineer ‘OP’, Circle D.H.B.V.N., Sirsa.
2. Executive Engineer, D.H.B.V.N, Sub-Urban, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation, Madhosinghana, D.H.B.V.N, District Sirsa.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………….. MEMBER
Present: Sh. A.K. Beniwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Parbhu Dayal, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is a small agriculturist by profession and is user/ consumer of the ops vide electric connection no. SM08-0990 (old Account No. M2-0271) installed at the premises of complainant and since the day of possession of his premises, the complainant has paid all the bills issued by the ops time to time except the disputed bill. The complainant has lodged a complaint with the ops but till today no action has been taken and grievance of complainant has not been redressed. It is further averred that on 16.09.2016 complainant detected that the meter is not in running condition upon which he moved an application 17.09.2016 before the ops for the checking/ changing of meter, but no action has been taken by the Nigam and officials of the Nigam used to visit at the premises of complainant and used to take the reading as per the average consumption of the units and on the basis of that the Nigam was issuing the bills to the complainant. That now on 16.10.2018, the officials of the Nigam visited the premises of complainant in his absence and conducted the checking and removed the old meter and installed a new meter and of their own in the absence of complainant prepared a LL1 report bearing no. 018/691 dated 16.10.2019. The observations made by the officials of the Nigam are given as under:-
(i) Checking was carried out in the premises of Subhash Chander a sper ledger record.
(ii) During checking found meter display figure defective so meter removed and packed into card board box and referred to lab for checking of reading.
(iii) New meter installed having Sr. No. 82836140 L/T 1060A 1R-00
(iv) Please action may be taken as per Nigam Rule.
3. It is further averred that the seals of the meter were found intact which is also mentioned in LL1 report and only the display figure of meter was found defective and only due to that defect in the meter, the complainant has moved the above said application. That on the basis of LL1 they have later on conducted the checking of meter in the absence of complainant whereas in the said checking report it has been specifically mentioned that there is no abnormality in the running of meter and only the display is defective. That thereafter again on 25.09.2019 the officials of Nigam without informing to the complainant or issuance of notice regarding preparing of audit report have prepared the manipulated audit report and now on the basis of LL1 and audit report, the Nigam has issued the bill no. 01628 dated 23.11.2019 which contains the amount of Rs.99,378/- which includes the disputed amount i.e. Rs.96514/-. This amount has been mentioned in the bill without any cogent reason and cause and ops also failed to give the details thereof when the complainant approached the op no.3. That prior to addition of this amount of Rs.96,514/- no notice with regard to show cause has ever been served upon the complainant so that the objections could be submitted before the concerned Competent Authority and as such a valuable right of the complainant has been waived off, which is against the law as well as against the principles of natural justice. It is further averred that imposition of amount of Rs.96,514/- through bill dated 23.11.2019 is quite wrong, without cogent reason against law and facts and as such it is void and is liable to be set aside. That complainant since the day of receipt of disputed bill roaming through the office of op no.3 and requesting to delete the wrongly inserted amount Rs.96514/- from the bill and also to get deposit the genuine consumption charges of electricity units from him but now the ops are threatening the complainant for the deposit of the amount otherwise his connection would be declared PDCO and also threatened to recover the disputed amount by using coercive methods. That due to act and conduct of the ops, the complainant has undergone mental tension and unnecessary harassment. Hence, this complaint.
4. On notice, ops appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that it is wrong that consumer has been making the payment of consumption charges to the ops regularly. As and when complainant moved an application/ complaint regarding meter, then on the request of the consumer, the original application/ complaint given to the consumer for verification of the meter from the concerned J.E but no action was taken place by the consumer and he had not return this application with verification before the nigam and withheld the said application with malafide intention. The old meter of the consumer was removed with new one vide LLI no. 018/691 dated 16.10.2018 by the officials of the nigam with above said observations. It is further submitted that notice was given to the consumer for checking the reading of meter from the lab. After that the meter was checked before the lab vide memo no. 71 and reading of the meter was found 21711. That the bill issued to the consumer is correct and genuine and issued as per the units actually consumed by the complainant. Internal Revenue Audit department prepared a half margin vide book no. 2019/88 sr. no. 083 dated 25.09.2019 and as per half margin report, the reading found in the meter 20711 and actual bill was as follows up to 8/2016-5257 unit, 10/16-250, 12/16-242, 2/17-274, 4/17-276, 6/17-298, 8/17-248 and 8/17 to 10/18- 560 units. After deducting the above said units from the actual units i.e. 20711, the units to be charged was found 13306 and an amount of Rs.96514/- was found to be charged from the consumer. After that the SDO ‘OP’ concerned ordered to charge Rs.96514/- from the consumer vide SC&AR No. 69. It is wrong and incorrect that it is not justifiable to recover the alleged amount from the complainant rather the ops are legally entitled to recover the same and complainant is legally liable to make the payment thereof. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.
6. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Balbir Singh, CA/ Lineman as Ex.R1, affidavit of Ms. Poonam Kamboj, JE-I as Ex.R2, affidavit of Sh. Gurlal Singh JE as Ex.R3, affidavit of Sh. Rajinder Singh, SDO as Ex.R4 and copies of documents Ex.R5 to Ex.R9.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. From the document i.e. application Ex.C1, it is evident that on 17.09.2016 complainant approached to the ops and moved said application regarding non working of the meter in question and that application was received by SDO on 17.09.2016 itself and was marked to Sh. Sunil Kamboj JE for checking and report. However, despite said application moved by complainant no action was taken by the ops up to 16.10.2018 and it was only on 16.10.2018 when the meter of the complainant was checked though in the presence of representative of complainant and it was found that meter display figure is defective. The meter was removed and was packed into card board box and was referred to the laboratory for checking. It is also not in dispute that from 17.09.2016 to 16.10.2018 the complainant was being served with electricity bills on the basis of average consumption but after checking of the meter in the laboratory, half margin report was prepared and the meter reading was found as 20711 units and after deducting 7405 units which were already billed on the basis of average consumption, the bill of remaining units i.e. 13306 units for an amount of Rs.96514/- was issued to the complainant. Even in the laboratory, no abnormality in the meter was found and its seals were found intact and only its reading display was found defective which cannot be said fault of the complainant at all and the ops took a period of more than two years in checking of the meter despite the application of complainant moved on 17.09.2016. The complainant has been issued disputed bill of Rs.96514/- i.e. for first 300 units at the rate of Rs.2.70, then for 500 units at the rate of Rs.4.50, for 600 units at the rate of Rs.5.25, for another 600 units at the rate of Rs.6.30 and for 11306 units at the rate of Rs.7.10 as is evident from half margin report Ex.C5. Further amounts of Rs.4923/- and Rs.1330/- have been added being FSA and ED charges. Since the ops have taken more than two years in detecting the actual reading of the meter and have failed to note down the actual reading of the meter of complainant in time by sending the meter in lab despite moving application of complainant and have failed to check and remove the difficulty being faced by complainant with regard to actual reading of the meter and display of meter was found defective after a long time, therefore, ops cannot charge the bill on the higher rates of units as charged by ops. The ops have violated the clause 2 of their own instructions no.4.14 which the stipulates that the defective meter shall be replaced by the licensee within 7 days of its being so established on checking. In the present case the complainant moved application regarding above said defect in the meter i.e. meter is not in running condition on 16.09.2016 but the ops got checking of the meter on 16.10.2018 after period of two years and as such the ops have violated their own instructions. As such the ops are deficient in service and they cannot charge the bill on higher rates on multiple units which have been detected after period of more than two years and due to their above said lapses and the most the ops can charge the rate of units at the minimum rate of Rs.2.70 for whole of the units i.e. for 13306 units. The complainant cannot be allowed to suffer for the mistake of the ops and he cannot be charged at the higher rate of units and therefore ops are liable to recover the amount of 13306 units at the minimum rate of Rs.2.70 only from the complainant.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned bill in question of the amount of Rs.96,514/- issued to the complainant and to issue fresh bill of the amount of Rs.35,926/- only (i.e. for 13306 units at the rate of Rs.2.70) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant will deposit the said amount of Rs.35,926/- of the fresh bill to be issued by ops within further period of two months and complainant will also deposit the current/ future bills of the electricity regularly to the ops. The amount if any already deposited by the complainant as per order dated 24.12.2019 shall be adjusted by the ops against said fresh bill/ future bills. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period of 45 days and ops will also adjust that amount of Rs.10,000/- against the said bill of Rs.35,926/- to be issued to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President,
Dated: 30.10.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
