BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Munish Aggarwal S/o Late Sh. Jaswant Rai, Resident of 10 C, Ram Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant

                                                Versus

S.D.O., S.D.O Office, Sub Division No.A12, Kwality Circle U.H.B.V.N. Ambala Cantt-133001

….…. Opposite Party.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

Present:-     Complainant in person.                                                                           

                   Shri Charanjit Singh Chahal Advocate, counsel for the OP.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To withdraw bill No.709962287422 dated 09th Feb 2022 and subsequently Bill No.709965301858 dated 12/04/2022 and issue correct bill.
2. To pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation for loss of Business, time and money spent in frequently visiting the office of the OP and substantial time spent in getting old records from files, from complainant's UHBVN account during the period 19-06-2019 till date to get his issue resolved for no fault of complainant.
3. To pay Rs. 90,000/- as compensation, damages. for suffering, special and general damage, and for causing harassment, mental tension and severe damage to the reputation of the complainant
4. To pay Rs. 8000/- as litigation expenses.

OR

5. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a consumer of SDO Office, UHBVN Sub Division No. A12, Kwality Circle, Ambala Cantt- 133001 under UHBVN account No. 7099619223. He was using the Electric Meter with Sr. No. 1324661 at his Residence 10 C, Ram Nagar, Ambala Cantt, which was supplied and installed by the OP on 24.11.2017. On 16th June 2019 when the complainant was cross verifying the Meter reading w. r. t. Bill No. 709960181857 dated 15th June 2019 for Rs.3926/- against 545 units, he observed that his electric meter impulse is running/Jumping at full speed at current rating of 60A and as such he immediately raised online complaint No. CMPA12000134979 on UHBVN Portal. The complainant also personally visited the OP on 16th June 2019 to register a complaint in this regard. The OP suggested the complainant to bring the video of the faulty Meter, so that some technician can be deputed for further action. The complainant recorded a video of the faulty meter on 17th June 2019 at 5.22 A.M. and again visited the OP. UHBVN technician visited the premises on 17th June 2019 and reported that meter was jumping without any load due to fault and this fact was verified by the J.E. of the OP. The complainant was asked to pay Meter testing charges of Rs. 330/- so as to get New Electric Meter issued from the OP. The complainant paid Meter testing charges of Rs. 330 vide receipt no. 389 on 18 June 2019. Since then the complainant was continuously running pillar to post to get his grievance resolved. The OP has also added Rs.15856/- as sundry charges to complainant's bill dated 14/10/2021 without any justifiable reason. The complainant has consumed 7749 electric units as on 09th Feb 2022 as per bill No. 709962287422 dated 09th Feb 2022 of UHBVN. The complainant is liable to pay Bill for pending 4139 Units as on 09th Feb 2022, which comes to approx Rs.14000/-.

Every time the complainant visited the OP, but he was ignored by stating that the meter has not been tested in the lab so far and that why he got so high load of 7KW sanctioned. On 26.10.2021 the complainant submitted his concerns to CM, Widow, whereafter, the OP agreed to partially correct the bill only by Rs.32727/-. Complainant's C.M Window Complaint No. CMOFF/N/2021/099915 dated 26.10.2021 was closed down on 01th Dec 2021 by the OP by stating that an amount of Rs.32,717/- will be adjusted by correcting the bill. However next Bill No. 709961930833 dated 13.12.2021 was again generated without any corrections. An Online complaint No. CHPA12000511222 dated 2/12/2021 in this regard was also closed down without any action. When no proper resolution by the OP was done against C.M. window complaint No.CMOFF/N/2021/099915 dated 26.10.2021, then he was forced to raise his concern again on C.M. window vide complaint No. CMOFF/N/2022/001136 dated 05.01.2022. It was only thereafter that the OP revealed that meter in question was tested faulty on 05/07/2019 itself. The OPwants to penalize the complainant for its own carelessness and deficient services by paying sum of Rs. 22071/- (against bill No.709962287422 dated 09 Feb 2022) against the actual amount of Rs.14,000/-. Hence, the present complaint.

3.           Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to cause of action etc.  On merits, it has been stated that the electricity meter bearing no.1324661 of the complainant turned defective on 18.06.2019 and the same was replaced on the same day with new meter bearing no. 18657544. The defective meter was checked on 05.07.2019 and reported 'erratic behavior so meter is defective'. The electricity account of the complainant was overhauled as per new meter consumption base after pre audit by the audit party as per Nigam rules. The OP promptly replaced the defective meter and Rs.32,727/- was adjusted after overhauling the account of the complainant. It is wrong to say that office of OP has also added Rs.15,856/- as sundry charges to the complainant's bill dated 14/10/2021 again without any justifiable reason. On the other hand, the meter was replaced on 18.06.2019 but MCO was entered in Dec-20 due to which final reading of 4200 balance units were charged in the bill and the OP is entitled to recover any amount which is chargeable to the complainant as per section 56 (2) of Electricity Act 2003. After the MCO (Meter Change Order), new meter was installed at the same premise and the defaulting meter was send to M&T lab for testing the defaulting meter. After receiving the meter test report in which it was observed that the meter is erratic behavior so meter is defective and A/c cannot be overhauled at that time being without availability of base. After receiving the lab report,  the OP  overhauled the account of complainant as per new meter consumption base and a sum of Rs.32,727/- was adjusted vide SCA no. 1/20 and complainant's bill was revised up to Rs.22,077/-. The OP has already redressed the grievances of the complainant by overhauling the account of the complainant and a sum of Rs.32,727/- was adjusted in the bill of the complainant. The account of the complainant was checked and overhauled only on the new meter consumption so that maximum benefit can be given to him. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA, alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-78 and closed the evidence of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of Poonam Rathi, O/o The SDO OP Sub Divn. No.UNBVN, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-21 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP.
5.           We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Complainant has submitted that the OP sent him a bill of heavy amount. However, the meter in question was found faulty and he requested the OP to sent him the correct bill but they ignored by stating that the meter has not been testing in the lab so far. Thereafter, when he filed a complaint before the CM Window then OP agreed to partially correct the bill. After receiving the meter test report, wherein it was observed that meter is erratic behavior. The OP told him that the account cannot be overhauled at that time being without availability of base and overhauled the account of the complainant as per new meter consumption base which is not fair on the part of the OP.
7.           Learned counsel for the OP while reiterating his objections taken in the written version, submitted that complainant has been issued correct electricity bills for the period in dispute, as per actual consumption of the electricity by him. He further submitted that after receiving the meter test report in which it was observed that the meter is erratic behavior so meter is defective and A/c cannot be overhauled at that time being without availability of base. He further submitted that after receiving the lab report,  the OP  overhauled the account of complainant as per new meter consumption base and a sum of Rs.32,727/- was adjusted vide SCA no. 1/20 and complainant's bill was revised up to Rs.22077/- and the OP  has already redressed the grievances of the complainant by overhauling the account.
8.           In the present case, the complainant is disputing the bills raised by the OP for the period from 19.06.2019 to 09.02.2022. It is not in dispute that the original meter of the complainant was found defective by the OP on 18.06.2019, which was replaced on the same day with new meter bearing no. 18657544.  It is also coming from the meter test report dated 23.07.2019, Annexure C-44 that the meter in question was checked on 05.07.2019 and found 'erratic behavior so meter is defective'. We have perused the document Annexure R-7, wherein it has been opined that the meter in question could not be checked by the Lab because its block was burnt. However, as per the own admission of the OP, the electricity account of the complainant was overhauled as per new meter consumption as a result of which Rs.32,727/- was adjusted after overhauling the account of the complainant; and that because the meter was replaced on 18.06.2019 but MCO was entered in Dec-20 as such, final reading of 4200 balance units were charged in the bill. It is significant to mention here that in our  considered opinion, once it is the own case of the OP that the meter in question could not be checked in the lab as block was found to be burnt, as such, under those circumstances, the OP was  required to  raise demand for the period in question, based on the previous consumption of electricity for the period from 19.06.2019 to 09.02.2022 i.e. after calculating it on average bimonthly consumption of electricity on the electricity connection in question during the previous six months as per instructions given in Clause B of the Sales Circular No.U-29 of 2011 issued on September 07th, 2011 by Chief General Manager, Commercial, Panchkula and Clause 1(b) of Sales Circular No.U-61/2013 issued on December 18th, 2013 by Chief General Manager/Commercial, UHBVN, Panchkula but it did not do so. Even the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, in Jagdeep Rana vs Uhbvnl, First Appeal No  :  1109 of 2017 decided on 26 March, 2018, under similar circumstances, while allowing the appeal filed by the complainant, also held as under:-

“……Moreover, if it be considered that the meter reader mentioned wrongfully the consumption of electricity as 800 units bimonthly and it came to the notice of other officials or officers of the UHBVNL during the previous eight months and due to this reason there was so much increase in the reading of the electricity bill regarding consumption of the electricity. In that eventuality, certainly the total arrears of consumption of electricity should have been mentioned in the electricity bill Exhibit C-2. In this case there is sudden rise in the consumption of the electricity as shown in the electricity bill Exhibit C-2 which is 25 times of the previous six months bimonthly consumption. In the next bimonthly bill Exhibit C-1 the consumption is shown 43 times of the previous six months bimonthly consumption of electricity. In these circumstances, findings cannot be given that increase in the consumption was shown in the electricity bills because during the previous so many months, electricity meter reader recorded wrong figure of consumption of electricity. In our view, if the opposite parties feel that all it happened due to involvement of meter reader or any other official of the opposite parties, in that situation before blaming the complainant, the opposite parties should have taken strict disciplinary action against the meter reader and other officials of the UHBVNL involved. It is strange that in such a situation, the officers of the opposite parties instead of solving the problem and redressing the genuine grievance of the complainant are raising demand of payment of the wrongful bill amount claimed by the opposite parties.

In this situation, only option before us is to give findings that all it happened due to defect in the electricity meter and more particularly due to all of a sudden jumping of the electricity meter.

As per discussions above in detail, as the opposite parties could not give any good and solid reason of 

issuance of the electricity bills Exhibits C-1 and C-2 mentioning huge amount, it will be justified to 

quash the above mentioned two electricity bill i.e. bill Exhibit C-2 issued regarding the period from 

November 30th, 2013 to January 31st, 2014 and the bill Exhibit C-1 regarding the period January 

31st, 2014 to March 31st, 2014 and to direct the opposite parties to issue a fresh electricity 

bill regarding the above mentioned period of four months from November 30th, 2013 to 

March 31st, 2014 mentioning total bimonthly consumption of electricity in terms of 

units as 800 (total 1600 units). The opposite parties are directed to issue fresh 

electricity bills regarding the disputed period on average bimonthly consumption of 

electricity on this electricity connection during the previous six months as per 

instructions given in Clause B of the Sales Circular No.U-29 of 2011 issued on 

September 07th, 2011 by Chief General Manager, Commercial, Panchkula and Clause 1(b) 

of Sales Circular No.U-61/2013 issued on December 18th, 2013 by 

Chief General Manager/Commercial, UHBVN, Panchkula in case the 

domestic electricity meter is found defective, sticky, dead stop, 

burnt, faulty or inoperative, premises locked, the electricity 

bill be prepared on the basis of average of last six months. 

The consumption of the same months of the preceding year is 

not available, therefore, it will be justified to direct the 

complainant to pay the electricity bill regarding the above 

mentioned period treating consumption of electricity in terms 

of units as 800 being bimonthly average consumption of electricity

 during the preceding six months. The opposite parties shall also 

not be entitled to receive surcharge and other electricity charges 

mentioned in the electricity bills Exhibit C-1 and Exhibit C-2. 

The complainant shall be liable to make payment of the electricity 

fuel surcharge etc. considering consumption of electricity on this 

electricity connection as 1600 units for a period of four months ending on March 31st, 2014…..”

Resultantly, the demands raised by the Ops alongwith allied/sundry charges vide bills dated 09.02.2022 and 12.04.2022 

in respect of the elctricity meter in question are queshed. 

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OP, in the following manner:- 

• To withdraw the bill dated 09.02.2022, Annexure C-75 and bill dated 12.04.2022, Annexure C-77 as the same stood quashed by this Commission, forthwith and raise fresh demand in respect of the electricity consumed by the complainant, for the period from 19.06.2019 to 09.02.2022 on average bimonthly consumption of electricity on the said electricity connection during the previous six months as per instructions given in Clause B of the Sales Circular No.U-29 of 2011 issued on September 07^th, 2011, and clause 1(b) of Sales Circular no.U-61/2013, referred to above, without levying any penalty/surcharge/delayed interest.
• To adjust the amount/sundry charges, if any deposited by the complainant, qua the bill in dispute for the period from 19.06.2019 to 09.02.2022, in the forthcoming bills.
• To pay amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
• To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

The OP is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 10.11.2023