Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/245/2014

Amit Kumar S/o Kehar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O .Sub Division Chhachhrauli, UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Ram Karan

16 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

                                                                  Complaint No.245 of 2014.

                                                                   Date of Institution:23.5.2014.

                                                                   Date of Decision:16.11.2017.

Amit Kumar age 36 year son of Shri Kehar Singh, resident of village Ledi, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                           

                                                                                    …Complainant.                                     

                                    Versus

1.      Sub Divisional Officer (op), Sub Division, Chhachrauli, Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

2.       Executive Engineer, (op) Sub Urban Division, Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

3.       Managing Director, Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                                     

                                                                                    ..Respondents.   

Before:        SH. SATPAL …………….    PRESIDENT

                   SH. S.C. SHARMA  …………………………MEMBER.

                   SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, ………...MEMBER

 

Present: Sh.Ram Karan Singh, Advocate for complainant.

              Sh.R.K.Kamboj, Advocate, for respondents.

ORDER   : (SATPAL, PRESIDENT).

1.                The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter the respondents shall be referred as OPs). 

2.                Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is consumer having electricity connection No.Y33 JH-262363 and has been paying the bills regularly.  The electric meter installed at the premises of the complainant was being checked by the OP’s from time to time and the same was found OK every time and no malpractice or fault of any kind was ever found therein.  The complainant usually used to pay the electricity bill amount in time and the bill had remained around Rs.300 units and Rs.350 units which was absolutely as per the consumption of the electricity.  In the month of March 2014 the complainant received a demand bill dated 14.3.2014 for Rs.19005/- for 2609 units on which the complainant contacted the OP No.1 with the request that the bill is not as per actual consumption but despite so many requests the bill of the complainant has not been corrected.  Moreover, the meter of the complainant has been replaced by the Ops and as per the reading of new meter the consumption is also stand near about 300 to 350 units per month but due to wrong demand bill of March-2014.  The amount is still added in the new bills and the same is liable to be rectified.  There is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint by directing the not to recover the illegal amount as mentioned in the bills in question and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation  as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of proceedings. 

3.                Upon notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections alleging therein that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum.  The true facts are that the electricity connection of the complainant bearing No.JH-26/2363M released in the name of the complainant and the bills were sent to the complainant as per meter reading for which the complainant is liable to pay the same but to save his skin the complainant filed this complaint just to harass the Ops.  On merits controverted the plea taken by the complainant by admitting the fact that the complainant is consumer of the Ops 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.                The complainant had failed to tender any evidence in support of his case, hence, the evidence of the complainant was closed by court order vide order dated 27.3.2017.

5.                The counsel for the Ops had tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Ashish Chopra, SDO as annexure RW/A and copy of ledger as annexure R.1 and closed his 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. 

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 only point of controversy between the parties is whether the bill dated 26.2.2014 for Rs.19005/- is illegal, excessive or not?

8.                We have gone through the detail of bills mentioned in the bill dated 28.12.2013and bill dated 26.2.2014 and further the copy of ledger of the accounts which was submitted by the learned counsel for the Ops during the course of arguments and the same has been taken on record as Mark-A.  The details of consumption of electricity made by the complainant as per ledger Mark-A are as under:-

Sr. No.	Month	Old Units	New Units	Units consumed
1.	10/2013	N	00001	720/18 N/Fix
2.	12/2013	00001	201	200/20
3.	2/2014	201	2810	2609
4.	4/2014	2810	3332	522
5.	6/2014	3332	3597	265
6.	8/2014	3597	3702	105
7.	10/2014	3702	3838	136
8.	12/2014	3838	3978	140
9.	2/2015	3978	4050	72
10.	4/2015	4050	4078	28

 

9.                From the perusal of the above said table it has been revealed that the bill for 10/2013 (Oct-2013) was for 18 months as is clear from the consumption detail in which the Ops mentioned ‘N’ in the column of New Reading and mentioned ‘00001’ in the old reading and in the next bill dated 12/2013(Dec-2013) the old reading has been mentioned as ‘00001’ and new reading has been mentioned as 201.  Further, in the bill dated 2/2014 (Feb-2014) the old reading has been shown as 201 and new reading has been shown as 2810 units.  The counsel for the Ops stated at bar that the first bill for the month of Oct-2013 mentioned at Sr.No.1 in the above table was for 18 months for 720 units of  consumption of electricity and the second bill for the month of Dec-2013 mentioned at Sr.No.2 in the above table was for 20 months but in advertently the actual consumption of electricity could not be incorporated in the above said bill of Oct-2013(Sr.No.1 of the table) and Dec-2013(Sr.No.2 of the table).  However, the details of actual consumption of electricity to the tune 2810 units was incorporated in the bill of Feb-2014 (sr. No.3 of the above table). It was further argued by the learned counsel for the Ops that the complainant was provided the new connection 18 months prior to Oct-2013 and for this 18 months complainant used to consume the electricity and no bill demanding for the payment of amount on account of consumption of electricity for these 18 months could not be sent to the complainant due to some mistake on the part of the officials of the Ops.  O

10.               On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the disputed bill does not reflect the actual consumption of the electricity and for the lapses of the officials of Ops he should not be burdened with the amount of surcharge and penalty etc. However, the learned counsel did not controvert the fact that the complainant did not pay the amount on account of consumption of electricity during the period of 18 months as discussed above.

11.               From the discussion made above, it clear that the complainant did not pay any amount on account of consumption of electricity made during the period of 18 months prior to Oct-2013 and it has also come on record that no bill was issued to him during this period.  So, the units consumed shown in the bill of Feb-2014 to the extent of 2609 are the units which have actually been consumed by the complainant for which he is liable to pay as per the rate applicable at the relevant time.  However, he cannot be burdened with the amount of surcharge and interest, penalty etc. levied on the amount of consumption of electricity to the tune of 2609 units because he was not sent the bill by the Ops for a period of 18 months for which they have been found negligent and deficient in providing the services to the complainant.   It would not be out of place to mention here that the officials of Ops forgot to send the bills for the 18 months to the complainant and thus it is clear cut case of deficiency on the part of the Ops.

12.               Resultantly, we therefore, direct the complainant to pay the bill which has been demanded for 2609 units vide bill dated 26.2.2014 without any surcharge/interest and the Ops are directed not to charge the surcharge/interest on the above said amount of 2609 units.  However, it is made clear that if any amount found deposited by the complainant on account of consumption of said 2609 units as shown in the bill of Feb-2014 and further in the bill of Oct-2013 and Dec-2013 the same be adjusted in the account of the complainant.  Further the Ops are directed to pay Rs.2200/- as cost of proceedings which is to be recovered from the erring official who dragged the complainant as well as Ops in this unwanted litigation for which the Ops-department had to pay fee to the Advocates.  Complaint stands disposed of.   Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court:16.11.2017.                   

                                                                             (SATPAL)

                                                                             PRESIDENT.

 (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)          

            MEMBER.