Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/256/2014

Virendra Partap S/o Ram Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.E,UHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

Sachin Kumar

23 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT AJGADHRI.

                                                            Consumer Complaint No.256 of 2014.

                                                            Date of Institution:5.6.2014.

                                                            Date of Decision:24.11.2017.

 

Virender Kumar aged 52 years son of late Shri Ram Lal, resident of House No.64-A/R, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                 …complainant.

                                        Vs.

  1.       SDE UHBVNL Sub Division, at Model Town, Yamuna Nagar.

  2.       Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Managing Director/Chairman.

…Respondents.

 

                                        Complaint under section 12 of the

                                        Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:     SH.SATPAL………..PRESIDENT,

                    SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh.Sachin Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

             None for OPs.

 

ORDER:       (SH.STAPAL PRESIDENT)

 

1.                 The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the respondent (hereinafter the respondent shall be referred as Op).

2.        Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is consumer of the of the Ops having domestic connection No.Y43YT25040SF being user and has been paying the bills regularly.  The meter was installed outside the house on a pole for the last several years.  The meter was running Ok as was evident from the bills and the complainant was stunned to receive the bill No.9057, dated 12.3.2014 for Rs.140292/- wherein a sum of Rs.136963/- has been added as sundry charges.  Immediately the complainant contacted the OP No.1 and moved an application on 26.3.2014 for deleting the above said amount Rs.136963/- and allow him to deposit the current consumption charges which application was duly endorsed vide Diary No.817, dated 31.3.3014 and assured to make the necessary correction.  The Ops again sent the bill No.9045, dated 13.5.2014 for Rs.148021/- by not deducting the amount Rs.136963/-.  The complainant approached the OP No.1 as to on which basis they have added the above said amount and requested them to rectify the same but of no use, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint by directing the OPs to correct the bill in question by deleting the amount Rs.136963/- and to pay Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony, harassment as well as cost of proceedings. 

3.                 Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint; the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; this Hon’ble Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum.  The true facts are that the account No.YT25-405 was released to the complainant for DS purpose.  Due to I code billing and sending wrong advice to computer cell, the Nigam charged amount of 240 units per month instead of 1819 units.  Hence, the account of the complainant has been overhauled and after that a sum of Rs.136963/- after proper calculation was imposed upon the complainant which was to be paid by the complainant but the complainant filed this present complaint.  On merits controvert the plea taken by the complainant and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

4.                 To prove the case the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit as annexure CW/A, documents such as copies of bills as annexure C.1 to C.3 and application dated 31.3.2014 as annexure C.4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. 

5.                 The counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Ramesh Saini, SDO as annexure RW/A, documents such as copies of half margin as annexure R.1 & R.2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Ops.

6.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file mintuely. 

7.                 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, it is clear that the complainant is consumer of the Ops and has been paying the bills regularly.  The version of the complainant is that the electric meter installed outside the house on a pole is correct and OK but due to mistake on the part of the Ops they have raised the illegal and unjustified demand of an exorbitant amount vide bill dated 12.3.2014 for an amount of Rs.136963/-. Whereas on the other hand the ops have admitted their mistake in para No.6 of preliminary objections of the written statement to the effect that “I code billing and sending wrong advice to the computer cell, the Ops have charged the amount for the consumption of 240 units  per month.  It has further been averred in the written statement that on account of said error i.e. sending of bill of consumption of 240 units to the complainant for a period from 11/2009 to 7/2013 the account of the complainant has been overhauled and after proper verification, it has been found that dues of sum of Rs.136963/- is outstanding towards the complainant on account of consumption of electricity during the above period from  

                    We have perused the details of consumption of electricity as shown in Half Margin dated 5.12.2013 annexure R.1 & R.2.  From the perusal of R.1 & R.2 it is clear that the complainant has been charged 240 units b1 monthly from 11/2009 to 7/2013. The audit party has concluded that the complainant should have been charged for 27723 units during the aforesaid period i.e.11/2009 to 7/2013.  The audit party vide said half margin audit report annexure R.1 & R.2 has recommended that the said loss of revenue may be made good after due verification and the MCO may also be traced and accounted for.  Further the audit party on half margin report annexure R.2 has remarked that due to I code bill and sending wrong advice to computer cell the Nigam i.e. Ops has suffered the loss of revenue.  Surprisingly, the Ops as per the observation made by the audit party in half margin report R.1 has not took pains and disclosed as to how the loss of revenue has been verified and as to what action has been taken about the tracing of the MCO.  The lapse on the part of the Ops has been admitted by the audit party vide half margin annexure R.2 and in written statement and it is clear that there was no defect in the electric meter and the mistake/error occurred due to the wrong advice sent to the computer system/cell wherein the electric bills are prepared and generated.  Thus, no fault can be attributed on the part of complainant in this regard.  However, it is important to see the criteria/yardstick adopted by the audit party to ascertain the probable consumption of electricity.  Nothing has been disclosed by the Ops while filing the written statement and while tendering the report annexure R.1 & R.2 during evidence about the criteria/yardstick adopted by the audit party to ascertain the probable consumption of electricity.  Therefore, in the absence of details of criteria/yardstick adopted by the audit party to ascertain the probable consumption of electricity, it not reasonable and justifiable to hold the demand of Rs.136,963/- on account of consumption of electricity w.e.f. 11/2009 to 7/2013 raised vide bill dated 12.3.2014 as legal and valid.  However, the details of actual consumption of electricity made by the complainant one year prior to the disputed bill dated 12.3.2014 are available on record vide bill dated 12.3.2014 annexure C.2.   The detail of the last consumption as per bill dated 3/2014 are as under:-

Sr. No.	Month	Units consumed
1	April-2013	240
2.	June-2013	1128
3.	Aug-2013	1698
4.	Oct-2013	581
5.	Dec.2013	879
6.	Feb-2014	608

                   

          The average units consumed from April-2013 to Feb-2014 by the complainant is 953 units bi-monthly and to adopt this consumption to the tune of 953 units bi-monthly for the disputed period w.e.f.11/2009 to 7/2013 is reasonable and justifiable because adopting the average method for one year is the most scientific and reasonable and justifiable whereas on the other hand the method whatsoever adopted by the Ops seems to be arbitrary unjustifiable and unreasonable.  Therefore, to resolve the controversy we take the 953 units bi-monthly as base for the above said period for which the account of the complainant has been overhauled by the Nigam i.e. from 11/2009 to 7/2013 totaling 22 bi-monthly bills and as per the base taken above the total units are calculated as 953x22=20966-5280(already charged units)=15686 units for which the Ops are entitled to recover the amount at the prevailing rate of unit at that time. 

                    Resultantly, we dispose of the complaint of the complainant by directing the Ops to issue the fresh bill for 15686 units at the prevailing rate of unit at that time without any surcharge/interest because the complainant can not be burdened with the levy of surcharge/penalty etc. as there is no lapse on his part in the matter.  So, the Ops are directed to recover the amount for 15686 units from the complainant in three equal installments without any surcharge/interest with future bills.  If the complainant defaults in making the payment then he shall be liable to pay the surcharge/interest on the above said amount for the defaulting period.  It is further made clear that if any amount found deposited towards the above said bill the same be adjusted in the account of the complainant and if any amount found recoverable the same be charged in three equal installments without surcharge/interest with future bills.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs.  File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced in open Court:24.11.2017.

                                                                                (SATPAL)

                                                                                PRESIDENT

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)             

MEMBER