Haryana

StateCommission

A/80/2017

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJEEV KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

24 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    80 of 2017

Date of Institution:  24.01.2017

Date of Decision :   24.05.2017

 

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Division A-14, Village Babyal, Ambala Cantt, through its Sub Divisional Officer. 

 

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

Sanjeev Kumar s/o Sh. Kala Ram Gauri, Resident of Village Tundli, Post Office, Kalarheri, Tehsil and District Ambala.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for appellant.

                             Respondent Sanjeev Kumar, in person.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred by Opposite Party against the order dated September 30^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.95 of 2011.

2.                Sanjeev Kumar-complainant (respondent herein) was provided an electricity connection bearing account No.BH01-2561-A, in his residential premises situated at Village Kalarheri, District Ambala by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL)-Opposite Party/appellant.  Earlier bimonthly electricity consumption on this electricity connection used to be approximately 450 units to 650 units. The complainant received a bill dated 22^nd February, 2011 regarding the period from November 30^th, 2010 to January 31^st, 2011 amounting to Rs.54,030/- showing consumption of electricity in terms of units as 10231. The complainant requested the opposite party to make correction in the electricity bill on the basis of average consumption but the opposite party refused to do so and started threatening the complainant to disconnect his electricity connection if the total bill amount was not paid in time. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- as part payment due to fear of disconnection. The electricity consumption shown during the relevant period mentioned above is highly excessive which may be due to some defect in the electricity meter also. It is prayed that the opposite party be directed to rectify the electricity bill issued to the complainant dated 22^nd February, 2011 on the basis of consumption of electricity on this electricity connection during a period of one year prior to the date of issuance of the electricity bill. The opposite party also be directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment, monetary losses and mental agony.

3.                The opposite party in its written version has taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that the complainant has not come with clean hands. It is pleaded that the electricity bill dated 22^nd February, 2011 regarding the period of 30^th November, 2010 to 31^st January, 2011 was issued correctly on the basis of consumption of electricity as recorded in the electricity meter. The complainant is liable to pay the total bill amount. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.

5.                After going through the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order dated 30^th September, 2016 allowed complaint filed by the complainant and directed the opposite party to rectify the electricity bill dated 22^nd February, 2011 on the basis of consumption of electricity during the corresponding period of previous year as well as coming year from the date of issuance of the disputed bill and to send a fresh bill. The opposite party has also been directed that any amount already paid by the complainant regarding the bill in dispute be also adjusted at the time of issuance of fresh electricity bill.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, complainant-respondent in person and perused the case file.

7.                During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that complainant-Sanjeev Kumar was provided an electricity connection bearing account No.BH01-2561-A in his residential premises at Village Kalarheri. The complainant adduced in evidence electricity bills (Annexure C-2 to C-7) to prove bimonthly consumption of electricity on this electricity connection during a period of one year prior to the date of issuance of electricity bill dated 22^nd February, 2011. Bimonthly consumption of electricity during the previous one year is mentioned in the electricity bills issued in the months of February 2010, April 2010, June 2010, August 2010, October 2010 and December 2010 in terms of units as 176, 177, 464,611,646 and 534 respectively. Regarding bimonthly consumption of electricity during the previous one year, as mentioned above, the opposite party has also no different version. The photo copy of complete data of this period has been placed on the file by the opposite party. In this way, bimonthly consumption of electricity during a period of previous one year on this electricity connection remained as 388 units.  Bimonthly consumption of electricity during the previous one year remained from 167 units to 611 units. In such situation, certainly it was surprising that the complainant received the electricity bill on 22^nd February, 2011 regarding the period of two months amounting to Rs.54,030/- showing consumption of electricity in terms of units as 10231, which is more than 23 times of the average bimonthly consumption during the last twelve months.  It is not the version of the opposite party that earlier reading of the electricity meter was not correctly obtained by the meter reader.  It is not the version of the opposite party that there was any other cause of sudden rise of electricity consumption during that period of two months. It is not the version of the opposite party that rise in consumption of electricity during this period was due to organization of certain family functions like marriages. It is also not the version of the opposite party that rise in consumption of electricity was due to some construction work in the same building or in a nearby building.

8.                In this situation findings can be safely given that all it happened due to fault in the electricity meter of any type. Sudden jumping of electricity meter is also not uncommon these days. The main cause of jumping in the electricity meter reading may be due to excess load on the electricity meter or transformer or fluctuation in supply of the electricity. It is also not the version of the opposite party that there was excess load upon the transformer or the electricity meter. Fluctuation in supply of electricity certainly may be due to faults of the opposite party. In these circumstances, findings cannot be given that the electricity bill dated 22^nd February, 2011 has been issued on the basis of actual consumption of electricity during the period from 30^th November, 2010 up to 31^st January, 2011.  In these circumstances, directions given by the learned District Forum to rectify the electricity bill issued on 22^nd February, 2011 on the basis of average consumption during the previous one year period and in the coming one year period are justified. Resultantly, we find no illegality or invalidity in the impugned order dated 30^th September, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum.  Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed.

 

Announced: 24.05.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL