Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 182

                                                                   Instituted on     : 09.03.2021

                                                                   Decided on       : 12.04.2024

Smt.Sheela Devi @ Shanti devi w/o Sh. Bhim Singh R/o Village GarnavatiTehsil Kalanaur, District Rohtak. Through Sh. Jagminder Singh s/o Sh.Bhim Singh VPO Garnawati.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                ...........Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1. Sub Divisional Officer(Uttar Haryana BijliVitran Nigam) Division No.4, Old Power House Colony, Near Double Phatak, Rohtak.
2. XEN, Uttar Haryana BijliVitran Nigam Limited, Rohtak, Xen., Sub Urban Division No.1, UHBVN, Rohtak. Old Power House colony, Old ITI, Double Phatak, Rohtak.

……….Opposite parties.

          COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.R.P.BudhwarAdvocate for complainant.

                   Sh.Ajay Gaur Advocate for opposite parties.

                                      ORDER

VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he has a domestic electric connection bearing no.GR3527 A/c no.R-35GR350027H installed in his house.  It is further submitted that only mother of the complainant aged 90 years  lives alone in this house . There are very few electrical appliances in this house with very little consumption of electricity. The electricity connection has been installed by the opposite party outside the house and nothing is outstanding against this connection. The opposite parties have sent an excessive bill amounting to Rs.36820/- for which the complainant met with the officials of opposite parties. They deducted some amount from this bill and issued the bill of Rs.24195/- as pending bill. The alleged bill is on very higher side and complainant is unable to pay the alleged huge amount. Complainant deposited a partial bill of Rs.5000/- to avoid the disconnection. Complainant contacted the opposite parties and came to know that the alleged bill was of old meter. Complainant requested the opposite parties  to correct the alleged bill but no satisfactory reply was given by the opposite parties. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to waive off the alleged bill and to pay compensation on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their written reply has submitted that the meter of the complainant was changed by the respondents for not showing actual unit consumption and the bills of the old meter were issued on MMC basis and after removal and checking the meter, it showed 8287 consumed units and the respondents issued bill of consumed units and installed a new meter on 30.10.2020.  The bill of MCO reading (8287) calculated Rs.@ 7.10 per unit(34477) and it is also recalculated and deducted by department as

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and thereafter Sh. Jagminder Singh AR of complainant closed his evidence on 07.11.2022. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.R1and closed his evidence on 28.06.2023.

4.                We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                As per the complainant a wrong bill has been issued by the respondent officials for an amount of Rs.36820/-. He has submitted that nothing is due against him regarding the previous electricity bills. After approaching the respondent officials the bill has been partly corrected and issued for an amount of Rs.24195/-. The complainant has submitted that a wrong bill has been issued for Rs.24195/-. His mother is an old lady and residing alone in this premises. We have minutely perused the documents. As per the written statement and affidavit it has been submitted by the opposite parties that : “The meter of the complainant was changed by the respondent for not showing actual unit consumption. After removal of meter, it was checked and the meter shown 8287 units  andrespondent issued bill of consumed units and installed a new meter on 30.10.2020. At the time of arguments, the respondent official has placed on record two documents one is MCO(meter changed order) dated 30.10.2020 as Annexure JNA and another document is store challan book  placed on record as Annexure JNB.  To prove the fact that when the meter was removed from the premises of the complainant an MCO has been prepared by the concerned SDO on the spot on dated 30.10.2020 and the reading in the meter of the complainant was shown as 8287. They further produced the store challan book in which the reading has been shown as 8287. After perusal of Annexure JNA , we came into the conclusion that this document has not been signed by the consumer and the same is signed by the concerned JE namely Amit Kumar only. If the department has pleaded in the written statement that the actual units consumption has not been shown then how the concerned JE recorded the reading as 8287 from the meter. Moreover the meter has not been sent to the laboratory for checking to prove the fact that whether the complainant has consumed the units mentioned in MCO or not. No technical report has been placed on record that reading was visible. In this case the meter was changed on 30.10.2020 and thereafter the department issued two bills i.e. Ex.C3 and Ex.C4. As per Ex.C3 the complainant consumed only 23 units from the period 13.12.2020 to 13.12.2021 and as per Ex.C4 complainant only consumed 34 units for the next cycle of  bimonthly bill. So as per our opinion wrong bill has been issued and the units were not visible at the time of MCO. Department is not entitled to charge the same from the complainant.

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to waive off the alleged bill of Rs.36820/- and not to charge the same from the complainant. However, if some amount is deposited by the complainant against this bill, then the same be refunded to the complainantalongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of their respective deposits till its realisation, also to pay Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service  and Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only)as litigation expenses to the complainant. However the amount awarded above shall be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

12.04.2024.                                                         

                                                          .....................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          TriptiPannu, Member.

                                                                        ..........................................

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member.