Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/180/2015

Laldeen S/o Ajamudeen - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O. UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Saini

24 Nov 2017

ORDER

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

                                                                        Complaint No.180 of 2015.

                                                                        Date of Institution:26.5.2015.

                                                                        Date of Decision:23.11.2017.

 

Lal Deen  age about 75 years son of Shri Ajamudeen, resident of village Naya Gaon, tehsil Bilaspur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                …complainant.

                                                Vs.

1.         SDO op Sub Div. (UHBVN) Sadhaura, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

2.         XEN OP Division UHBVNL, Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala.

3.         Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its MD.

…Respondents.

 

                                                Complaint under section 12 of the

                                                Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:        SH.SATPAL………..PRESIDENT,

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh.S.S.Saini, Adv. for complainant.

               Sh.Jaipal Singh, Adv. 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 Ops having domestic connection No.Y14JS122042W and has been paying the bills regularly.  The bill of the complainant never exceeded from 150/200.  The complainant was astonished to receive the bill dated 26.12.2014 for Rs.54843/- for 10587 units in Oct-2014 and for 750 units in Dec-2014 illegally and wrongly.  The complainant requested the Ops to correct the bills as per actual consumption as per bare reading of the previous bills paid by the complainant in which the 150/200 units per bill have been shown but the Ops pay no heed to the genuine request of the complainant, 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 dated 26.12.2014 and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, harassment as well as Rs.11000/- 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 cause of action against the Ops; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint;; the complaint is not legally maintainable.  The true facts are that in October-2011 the reading shown by the meter was 6057 but due to the mistake of the computer, the meter was shown defective and a bill of 160 units was charged on minimum basis and similarly till 8/2014 the old reading was shown 6057 every time and new reading was noted from the meter which was running correctly and showing actual reading but the bill was issued on the basis of defective meter for fixed units and in 10/2014 the mistake came into the knowledge of the Ops and the account of the complainant was overhauled and new reading was shown by the meter as 16644 and old reading was 6057 and as such the meter showed consumed 10587 units and the amount charged on minimum basis amounting to Rs.13,587/- has been deducted from the amount charged in the bill 10/2014 and the bill was issued for a sum of Rs.50348/- and after this bill the bills are being issued regularly on the basis of actual consumption and the complainant is liable to make the payment of amount.  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.5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. 

5.                   Shri Maharaj Singh, LM for Ops tendered into evidence his own affidavit as annexure RW/A and copy of ledger as annexure R.1 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 minutely. 

7.              It is an admitted fact that the complainant is consumer of the Ops and has been paying the bills regularly.  The main controversy between the parties

 is whether the complainant is liable to make the payment of Rs.48903/- on account of consumption of electricity of 10587 units as shown in bill dated 25.10.2014.  The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant stated that the complainant is not liable to make the payment Rs.48903/- as demanded by the Ops vide bill dated 25.10.2014 (annexure C.2) since the complainant have not consumed to the extent of 10587 units.  It has further been argued that the Ops used to send the bills to the complainant from Oct-2011 to Oct-2014 showing the old reading as 6057 units which clearly proved beyond any doubt the negligent act and conduct of the official of the Ops.  The complainant invited the attention of the Ops towards the said lapse i.e. mentioning of 6057 units in the column of old units consumed in the bill w.e.f. Oct-2011 to Oct-2014 but the Ops did not care and showed utter apathy towards the genuine problem of the complainant.  Lastly it was argued that the complainant being an old man and resident of rural area is not liable to make the payment 10587 units as demanded by the Ops, in view of the glaring lapse on the part of Ops. 

                        On the other hand the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ops stated that the mistake of showing the reading of 6057 units in the column of old reading in the electric bills w.e.f. Oct-2011 to Oct-2014 occurred due to the technical defect in the computer system wherein the electric bills are auto generated.  The learned counsel further argued that the complainant is liable to make the payment in respect of actual consumption of electricity and that there was no defect in the electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant and that working/functioning of the meter was O.K. during the whole period to which the disputed bill is related and thus the complainant is liable to make the payment as demanded and that there was no lapse on the part of Ops.

            For deciding the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to tabulate the consumption of electricity as reflected in annexure R.1.  The details of ledger annexure R.1 is as under:-

Sr. No.	Month	Old Reading	New Reading	Consumption
1.	10/2011	6057	6057	160
2.	12/2011	6057	6057	183
3.	2/2012	6057	6438	235
4.	4/2012	6057	6762	278
5.	6/2012	6057	6956	314
6.	8/2012	6057	7027	121
7.	10/2012	6057	7129	160
8.	12/2012	6057	7249	160
9.	2/2013	6057	7458	160
10.	4/2013	6057	7691	160
11	6/2013	6057	8063	160
12	8/2013	6057	10783	160
13	10/2013	6057	11437	160
14	12/2013	6057	12257	160
15	2/2014	6057	13337	160
16	4/2014	6057	13897	160
17	6/2014	6057	14691	160
18	8/2014	6057	14917	160
19.	10/2014	6057	16644	10587

 

                        From a bare perusal of above table it is clear that the Ops have been sending the bills to the complainant mentioning the figure of 6057 units in the column of old reading w.e.f. 10/2011(Oct/2011)  to 10/2014(Oct/2014).  Further, in the column of new readings the consumption of units has been shown as 16644 units for the above said period.  Thus, the units which in fact have been consumed by the complainant during the aforesaid period are 10587 units i.e. 16644 units-6057 units=10587 units.  Further the complainant has already paid the amount for 3211 units which has been demanded by the Ops from Oct-2011 to Oct-2014 and thus he is liable to pay only in respect of 10587-3211=7376 units.

                        From the discussion made above it is evident that there was serious lapse on the part of Ops while sending the bills for continuous period of three years with incorrect figures in the column of old reading.  The version of the Ops that the error occurred due to the technical defect in the computer system is not tenable because the error or mistake may occur in the reading of one month or at the most in the reading two or three months.  Further the computer system is also manned by some officials and supervised by some officers and they are not expected to overlook or ignore such glaring mistake for such a long period.  Thus, there is no doubt in the mind of this Forum about the lapses on the part of officials of the Ops who are responsible for the generation and preparation of electric bills.  Further the officers above the computer officials have also been found negligent and deficient while performing their duties.  Therefore, the complainant can not be burdened with the levy of surcharge/penalty/interest etc. on the amount of actual consumption of electricity which is 7376 units as there is no fault on his part. 

                        Resultantly, we dispose of the complaint of the complainant by directing the Ops to charge the bill for 7376 units instead of 10587 at the prevailing rate of units at that time without any surcharge/interest in three equal installments.  The Ops shall issue the fresh bill as directed above within two months.  The complainant will pay the amount as per bill to be issued by the Ops along with future bills.  However, it is made clear that if any amount found deposited towards this amount the same be adjusted in the account of the complainant and then if any amount found recoverable the same be recovered as directed above.  Since, the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops proved for which they have dragged the complainant in unwanted litigation, hence, the Ops shall pay litigation charges to the tune of Rs.2200/-.  Order be complied within two months as directed above failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs.  File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced in open Court:23.11.2017.

                                                                                                (SATPAL)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                   

MEMBER