Delhi

East Delhi

CC/852/2014

SHILPA - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDRAPRAATHA GAS - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jul 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 852/14

 

Ms. Shilpa Gupta

W/I Shri Jai Gupta

Flat No. 15-C, MIG DDA Flats

Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I

New Delhi – 110 017                                                   ….Complainant

Vs.    

 

1. M/s. Indraprastha Gas Limited

IGL Bhawan, Plot No. 4

Sector-9, R.K. Puram

New Delhi – 110 022                                                       …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 12.09.2014

Judgement Reserved on: 04.07.2019

Judgement Passed on: 09.07.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Ms. Shilpa Gupta against           M/s. Indraprastha Gas Limited (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant Shilpa Gupta had taken new IGL connection from M/s. Indraprastha Gas Limited (OP) for supply of PNG.  The PNG connection BP No. 4000206198 and meter no. 1816521 was installed in the name of the complainant at her residential address on 21.06.2013 for which receipt was issued. 

It was stated that she received the first bill dated 17.09.2013 for an amount of Rs. 4,462/- which showed meter reading as 123 units as on 31.08.2013, even though, no meter reader had visited her residence to take down the meter reading.  She did not make the payment as most of the residents of her colony received a bill of less than Rs. 1,000/-.  She was under the impression that the next bill from Indraprastha Gas Limited (OP) would be based on the actual reading and then she would make the payment for the actual gas consumption. 

On 31.10.2013, she again received the next bill for an amount of    Rs. 6664.95 though no reading was taken by the meter reader.  This bill also showed estimated reading as 176 units as on 08.09.2013.  She then lodged the complaint with OP/IGL on 02.11.2013.  She was given the complaint no. ONM2013712068.  A meter reader came on the same day i.e. 02.11.2013 to the residence of the complainant and took the meter reading which on 02.11.2013 was 039,983 at 5.10 p.m.  However, she again received a new bill dated 02.01.2014 which showed the meter reading as 176 units as on 01.10.2013 and the amount was Rs. 6664.95.  Then, she emailed on 24.01.2014 stating that she has received the inflated estimated bills and informed them that the current meter reading on 24.01.2014 was 066927 in her gas meter and requested for the bill based on the actual reading so that she may make the payment. 

She further informed to IGL that the list carried by the meter reader/staff of IGL showed her residence “15-C, MIG DDA Flats” in the list of “SFS Flats” in Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I which caused a lot of confusion to the IGL staff.  She requested that this anomaly may be rectified so that the staff may not face any difficulty at the time of record the meter reading in the colony.  However, no written confirmation email was received by the complainant.

She has further stated that on 30.01.2014, a new bill/invoice was received by the complainant which showed the bill to be an estimated invoice showing the estimated reading to be 334 as on 27.12.2013 and asked the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs. 13,412.30. 

She sent a legal notice through her lawyer, but did not get any reply.  She has also stated that the next bill received by the complainant based on estimated reading from IGL dated 09.04.2014 was for an amount of         Rs. 17,147.28.  This bill showed the estimated reading as 413 units as on  08.02.2014.  This bill was followed by three more bills dated 29.04.2014 (reading 510) for payment of Rs. 17,680/-, 04.07.2014 (reading 647) for payment of Rs. 27,257/- and 27.08.2014 (reading 714) for Rs. 30,563.78 which were based on estimated reading.  The meter reading on the gas meter installed at the residence of the complainant was 126.80 as on 05.08.2014 at 10.00 a.m. while the bill dated 07.08.2014 received by the complainant was for estimated consumption of 714.89 units as on 08.08.2014. 

It has been stated that from time to time, IGL have issued 7 continuous bills for a period of one year on estimated consumption demanding different amounts.  This, she has stated amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Thus, she has prayed for directions to OP to issue the bill on the basis of actual consumption, pay Rs. 50,000/- compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and              Rs. 20,000/- towards cost of litigation.  

3.         In the reply filed on behalf of OP, they have taken stated that normally bills for gas connection were raised on actual meter reading if access to the residential premises was available to the staff of OP.  Where the house was locked, the bills were initially raised on the basis of estimated gas consumption and when the actual meter reading was available, the earlier entries on estimated consumption basis were reversed and a fresh invoice on actual consumption was raised. 

            Further, payment made by the consumer on estimated consumption basis, were adjusted and demand note for the difference amount was raised.  This practice has been followed in this case. 

            They have further stated that estimated bill was sent to the complainant as her house was found locked.  They have stated that all the estimated bills generated since 21.06.2013 till 11.03.2015 were cancelled in lieu of which revised bill dated 18.03.2015 was generated.  They have admitted that they issued bills on estimated basis as house of the complainant was found locked.  However, they cancelled the estimated bills and issued the revised bill.  Her address in the records maintained by OP was shown as 15 MIG Block, DDA Flats, Triveni Apartments, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I, New Delhi – 110 017 since inception of the connection.

            They have further stated that the complainant did not make the payment under pre conceived notion that her neighbours have received bill of less amount.  Her house was found locked at the time of obtaining actual meter reading since 01.06.2013.  They have already issued revised bills on the basis of actual meter reading.  They have denied that there has been any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   

4.         Complainant have filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein she has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted her pleas.

5.         In support of its case, the complainant have examined herself.  She has deposed on affidavit.  She has narrated the facts which have been  stated in the complaint.  She has also got exhibited copy of connection receipt dated 21.06.2013 (Annex. A), copy of bill dated 17.09.2013    (Annex. A1), copy of bill dated 31.10.2013 (Annex. A2), copy of customer call sheet of Mr. Hanif Khan (Annex. A3), copy of bill dated 02.01.2014 (Annex. A4), copy of email sent to OP on 24.01.2014 (Annex. A5), copy of bill dated 30.01.2014 (Annex. A6), copy of legal notice dated 11.02.2014 alongwith receipt (Annex. A7), copy of bill dated 09.04.2014 (Annex. A8) and copy of bills dated 29.04.2014, 04.07.2014 and 27.08.2014 (Annex. A9 to A11).  

            In defence, OP have examined Shri Bhudev Singh, Chief General Manager (Marketing) in Indraprastha Gas Limited, who have also deposed on affidavit.   He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS.  He has got exhibited copy of authorization letter dated 02.04.2018 alongwith Board Resolution dated 05.11.2004 (Annex. A & B).

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and have perused the material placed on record.  During the course of arguments, the only point which has been raised on behalf of complainant has been with regard to compensation.  He has argued that since the complainant have to suffer due to billing on estimated basis, she has to be compensated on account of mental agony and harassment. 

            On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for OP have argued that since they have issued revised bill, no case of compensation on account of mental agony and harassment have been made out.  It is admitted case of both the parties that OP have firstly issued estimated bills and later on they have issued the revised bill.  The plea which has been taken on behalf of OP have been that the house of the complainant was found locked.  However, no evidence has been placed on record to substantiate this fact.  In the absence of that, the plea of house having been found locked cannot be accepted.

            The fact that IGL (OP) have issued initially estimated bills and later on they have issued the revised bills, certainly, the complainant have suffered mental pain and agony for which she has to be compensated.

            Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, IGL (OP) is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on account of mental pain and agony which includes the cost of litigation.  This amount be paid within a period of 30 days.  If not paid, the amount of Rs. 15,000/- shall carry 6% interest from the date of order till realization.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member 

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                      President