District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.150/2021.
Date of Institution: 18.03.2021.
Date of Order: 15.07.2022
Prem Dua resident of A-16/G, Nehru Ground, NIT, Faridabad -121001, Haryana through Authorized person, Nitin Dua, resident of A-16/G, Nehru Ground, NIT, Faridabad-121001, Haryana.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. SDO F21-No.1, DHBVNL, NIT, Faridabad – 121001, Haryana.
2. Head of Billing and Accounts Department, DHBVNL, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar – 125005, Haryana.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Nitin Dua son of Shri Prem dua in person on behalf of the complainant.
Shri R.K.Bhati, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was a consumer bearing Account No. 7357230000 of the opposite parties. The complainant had approached the opposite parties (in person, on D HVN Consumers Grievances Toll free number 1800 180 4334 and through online channels such as CGRS, national Consumer Helpline) multiple times related to delay in providing bills, taking the wrong meter readings after 7 months, making wrong bills, charging extra, for rectifications of wrongly charged amount, for making adjustments of extra paid amount in different bills and requests for sharing actual information and method used by DHBVNL for calculating bills. Despite requesting several times neither the opposite parties had made any rectifications nor they had provided the true information so that a consumer could now, that for what and why was he/she paying the billed amount. The opposite parties had shown 11379 units as total consumed units in October 2020 bill & 0 as total consumed units and net billed units in January 2021 bill, which were not clear and consumer needs more information. So, the extra cost charged from consumer should be paid back. Even after providing evidences to DHBVNL, they continued to charged extra and they were not ready to make any rectifications, for which DHBVNL was liable. Since March 2020 (till date) they had sent wrong bills and they were also not providing any Generation Based incentives for generating solar electricity. After all the humiliation and getting tired by DHBVNL F21 and billing and accounts department in Hisar, when the consumer wishes to approach to legal system and informed opposite parties about it (in person as well as online) DHBVNL chooses to ignore it and pay no attention to provide any solution. The complainant sent legal notice to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
A) Please provide all given information, so that actual extra paid amount could be calculated.
a) Why did DHBVNL to provide the bill for 217 days/7 months?
As complete covid lockdowns were for 3 months (april-June) and they were issuing bills and accepting payments post lockdowns, please do not give “lockdowns” excuse.
b) Why did billing and accounts department charge extra for March 2020 bill?
If consumer units are 282, why did they charge the consumer with 7.10 per unit?
c) Why did DHBVNL not provide any susbsidy or incentives for neither solar installation nor for solar generation even after requesting?
d) Does Haryana/Central Government not provide Generation Based Incentives and other subsidies?
Please mention them.
e) Why did F21 not accept cheque as payment, although DHBVNL allows it.
Because of demand draft consumer ha dto pay extra, Who will bear this loss?
Is it only F21’s rule or DHBVNL directed it?
f) Why did DHBVN not accept payment of Rs.60,654 in parts, although consumer had no faults for their delay. If he/she could not afford to pay this big amount at once, especially post Covid lockdowns, why was consumer forced to pay it?
g) Why should a consumer suffer for wrong billings if F21 DHBVN and DHBVN Hisar can not educate or communicate to each other?
F21 says that they can not make changes as Hisar makes bills and they have to be dependent on Hisar.
h) Why did DHBVN not respond to Consumer’s grievances for so long and choose to ignore legal proceedings too?
i) If consumer can find so many mistakes in their billing sand calculations, why can F21 (SDO,CA) and DHBVNL Hisar not accept their mistakes?
j) Why did both opposite parties say and write every time that bill is correct?
k) Please educate us how DHBVN is calculating the bills of On-grid Solar plants, as the bills provided bythem are not mentioning the method of calculating bills, adjusting he net units or billed units clearly.
B. How much refund and how would they back to consumer, which they charged extra by ignoring the circulars of departments of government?
C. As these mistakes already happened in every bill since March 2020, how would they ensure their consumers that in future these mistakes would not be repeated?
D. If they repeat such mistakes (consciously nor unconsciously) would they accept penalties?
Please confirm this before their Hon’ble Commission/legal system, so that everyone’s precious time can be saved and not be spent in calculating the mistakes and different losses. Please also note that they had already consumed around one yea r(March 2020-March 2021) of consumer without accepting any mistake.
E. Litigation charges of Rs.5,000/- should be paid to the consumer.\
F. A compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and losses like time and financial that because of their mistakes, consumer had to face.
2. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had concealed the true and material facts form the Hon’ble Court. However, it was submitted that the electricity connection bearing account No. 7357230000 under DS category with sanctioned load 11.00KW was released by the opposite parties ot the name of the complainant at the aforementioned premises. The electricity bills were issued to the complainant as per consumed units as record by the electricity meter. The electricity bill dated 23.02.2020 was issued to the complainant for the period from 22.12.2019 to 23.02.2020 (63 days) for 762 consumed units (New reading 86637 Kwh and old readings 85875 Kwh.) for Rs.3539.00. On 17.03.2020, the electricity meter of the complainant was changed and new meter (which records data of export and import units) was installed by the opposite parties at initial Kwh-E(export) 2 units and Kwh-1 (import) 01 unit. It was very important to mention that the solar meter of the solar system was only to measure the units produced by the solar panel. The said meter was used only for reference not for billing purpose. It was further submitted that at the time of removing the old normal electricity i.e. on17.03.2020, the final readings recorded by the meter were found as 86920 Kwh. On 20.10.2020, the electricity units found recorded by the Net meter were as under:
Kwh-I (Important from Nigam System) : 9486 Kwh(I)
(9487-01 + 9486 Kwh-I)
Kwh-E(Exported to Nigam System) : 1867 Kwh (E)
1869-02 =1867 Kwh-E)
Unit generated by the Solar System : 3477 Kwh.
Solar units consumed by the consumer : 1610 Kwh.
(3477-1867 =1610 Kwh)
(It was pertinent to mention here that the total units 3477 Kwh were generated by the Solar system upto 20.10.2020 out of them 1867 Kwh were exported to Nigam System. Hence, 1610 Kwh units out of total 3477 Kwh generated by the solar System were consumed by the consumer i.e. 3477 – 1867 = 1610 Kwh)
Hence, as per rules and regulations of the opposite parties, the electricity bill dated 28.10.2020 was issued to the complainant for the period from 23.02.2020 to 20.10.2020 for total net billed u nits 7902 Kwh for Rs.60,654/- (17.03.2020 to 20.10.2020 for 7619 Kwh units (9486 Kwh Import – 1867 Kwh Export + 7619 Kwh plus 283 Kwh units for unbilled period of old removed meter from 23.02.2020 to 17.03.2020 for 283 Kwh units (New 86920 Kwh – Old 86637 Kwh = 283Kwh). It was pertinent to mention that the said bill was issued for 240 days as the record of Net Meter was updated in the online software system of the opposite parties. The complainant/consumer paid the said amount to the opposite parties on 04.11.2020. The electricity bill dated 18.01.2021 for the period from 20.10.2020 to 13.01.2021 for 441 net billed units for Rs.1335/- and the same was paid by the consumer on 22.01.2021. The electricity bill dated 27.04.2021 for the period from 13.01.2021 to 20.04.2021 for 143.99 bet billed units for 362/- but the same was cancelled by the opposite parties as the Solar System generated units were not taken as per recorded readings. Hence, the electricity bill dated 17.06.2021 for the period from 13.01.2021 to 01.06.2021 for 1269 net billed units for Rs.4,571/- after adjustment of cancelled bill amount of Rs.362.48 and the same was paid by the consumer on 21.06.2021.Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence Evidence -1 – bill dated 04.11.2020 for an amount of Rs.60654/-, Evidence C-2 – bill dated 25.01.2021 for an amount of Rs.1335/-, Evidence -3 - Bill dated 10.09.2020 for Rs.1145/-, Evidence-4 – bill for Rs.1760/-, Evidence-5 – Contact history, Evidence-6 - Complaint Register Tracking,, Evidence-7 – notice,, Evidence- 8 to 10 – Complaints Register Tracking., Evidence-11 – Grievance details.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties, Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Dinesh Kumar, SDO, DHBVNL, NIT, Faridabad, R-1 – bill dated 10.08.2021 for Rs.25573/-, R-2 – bill dated14.06.2021 for Rs.362/-,, bill dated 25.01.2021 for Rs.1335/-, R-4 – bill dated 04.11.2020 for Rs.60654/-, R-5 – bill dated 25.06.2021 for Rs.4571/-, R-6 – bill dated 04.03.2020 for Rs.3539/-
5. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with the direction to the opposite parties to overhaul the account of the complainant and explained the details bills related to delay in providing bills, taking the wrong meter readings after 7 months, making wrong bills, charging extra, subsidy of the solar generation, for rectifications of wrongly charged amount, for making adjustments of extra paid amounts in different bills and requests for sharing actual information and method used by DHBVNL for calculating bills. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 15.07.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
