Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/891/2013

Sewa Ram s/o Sh.Paras Ram, - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO City UHBVNL, - Opp.Party(s)

Sudesh Sharma

24 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

                                                                   Complaint No.891 of 2013.

                                                                   Date of Institution:10.12.2013.

                                                                   Date of Decision:24.11.2017.

 

            Sewa Ram (Deceased) now represented by his LRs;-

             1.       R.C.Sharma,

             2.       Satpal sons of late Sh.Sewa Ram, residents of Vishnu Garden, Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                         …Complainant.                                         

                                 Versus

1.       SDO City Sub Division, UHBVN Ltd. Jagadhri.

2.       UHBVN Ltd. Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Chairman.

                                                                                        ..Respondents.  

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

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

 

Present: Sh.Sudesh Sharma, 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.Y31JC183575K and has been paying the bills regularly.    The complainant was stunned to receive the bill No.3749, dated 9.11.2013 for Rs.14241/- for the period from 24.8.2013 to 24.10.2013 in which an amount of Rs.11779/- has been added as sundry charges.  The complainant approached the Op No.1 to enquire the matter as there is no arrears of any kind but the officials flatly told the complainant to deposit the amount otherwise the connection will be disconnected.  There is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for directing the Ops to rectify the impugned bill and not to charge Rs.11779/- and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for 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 complaint is not legally maintainable in the present form; the complainant has no cause of action to file and maintain the present complaint; the complainant is legally estopped by his own act and conduct from filing 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 meter of the complainant was dead stop at meter reading 7471 in the year 2009, the demand bills were given to the complainant on minimum basis and thereafter the account of the complainant overhauled by the audit party by taking previous same months meter reading average of last 6 months, since September-2010 to May-2012 vide half margin No.99/3528 and a sum of Rs.11779/- were due in the account of the complainant, then the electricity meter of the complainant has been changed vide MCO No.14/1131, dated 18.4.2012 effect from 12.7.2012 and accordingly the demand bill is being given to the complainant as per consumption.  Accordingly, the amount of a sum of Rs.11779/- is correct as per norms of Sale Circular No.U-29/2011, dated 7.9.2011 read with Sale Circular No.U-6/2007, dated 29.1.2007 and the complainant is liable to pay the same.  On merits controvert the plea taken by the complainant by reiterating 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 his case the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence copies of bills as annexure C.1 to C.3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

5.                The Ops have tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri S.L.Goel, SDO as annexure R.X, copy of ledger as annexure R.1 and copy of audit observation as annexure R.2 and closed the evidence on behalf of 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.                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 amount of Rs.11779/- demanded through bill dated 9.11.2013 is illegal, excessive or not?

8.                We have gone through the previous detail of bills mentioned in the bill dated 9.11.2013 (annexure C.1).  The details of consumption are as under:-

Sr. No.	Month	Units consumed
1.	Dec-2012	132
2.	Feb-2013	180
3.	April-2013	289
4.	June-2013	373
5.	Aug-2013	318
6.	Oct-2013	403

 

9.                The version of the complainant is that the Ops have illegally demanded the Rs.11779/- as sundry charges vide the disputed bill as he has been making the payment of electricity bills for the units which had actually been consumed by him.  Therefore, it has been contended that the complainant is not liable to make the payment of Rs.11779/- as demanded vide the disputed bill.  On the other hand the version of the Op is that due to the defect in the electric meter of the complainant he was being sent the electric bills during the period from Sep-2010 to May-2012  on minimum consumption of units basis and the electric meter was changed vide MCO No. 14/1131, dated 18.4.2012 effect from 12.7.2012.  It has been contended that the account of the complainant was overhauled by the audit party, keeping in view the consumption trend of electricity and the recovery of Rs.11779.27 raised vide the disputed bill from the complainant is reasonable, valid and legally justifiable.  The details of consumption analysis is available on audit observation annexure R.2. It has also be contended that the recovery of the said amount has been raised vide disputed bill strictly in view of the directions/instructions contained in sale circulars as mentioned in annexure R.2.  Therefore, the complainant is liable to make the payment of Rs.11779/- as demanded by disputed bill.

10.              We have perused the relevant record which has been made available on record by the parties and it has been revealed that the electric meter of the complainant was defective w.e.f. Sep-2010 to May-2012 and therefore, the bills were sent to the complainant on minimum consumption of electricity basis, whereas the consumption during the relevant period was on higher side.  If we take into consideration the average consumption of units as consumed by the complainant after the installation of the new meter even then the same also comes nearer to the units as demanded by the Ops on the basis of consumption analysis during the relevant period.  Thus, the demand in question made by the Ops is reasonable, valid and legally justifiable.  However, this fact cannot be overlooked that the Ops were sending the electric bills to the consumer on minimum average basis for such an unduly long period i.e. Sep-2010 to May-2012 which cannot be said to be reasonable and justifiable from any angle.  Therefore, it is clear lapse on the part of the Ops while sending the bills to the complainant on minimum average basis for a long duration without any reasonable justification. 

                   Resultantly, we conclude that the demand raised vide bill dated   for Rs.11779/- by the Ops is legal and valid and further we issue the directions to the Ops to make a payment of Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses etc.   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:24.11.2017.               

                                                                             (SATPAL)

                                                                             PRESIDENT.

 

 (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                 

MEMBER.