Haryana

Karnal

CC/527/2019

Rajpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO (OP) Sub Division UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

22 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 527 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.14.08.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:22.03.2022

 

Rajpal (aged 55 years) son of Shri Prithvi Singh resident of village Jamba, Tehsil Nigdhu, District Karnal, Aadhaar no.3888 1357 6615.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.  SDO (OP), Sub Division UHBVNL, Nilokheri (Karnal).

2.  Director, UHBVNL, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

 

 Argued by:           Complainant in person.

Shri B.P.Singh, counsel for opposite parties.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:  

 

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that on 08.12.2016, the complainant applied for an electric connection at his house, situated in village Nigdhu and had deposited an amount of Rs.2450/-, vide receipt no.312. The OP no.1 has installed an electric meter at the house of the complainant in village Nigdhu on 01.01.2017. Thus, the complainant is the consumer of OPs, vide account no.122kj301349y. The complainant has paying the electricity charges regularly as per consumption inspite of that the OPs  have not sent the electricity bill for about a year. After waiting sufficiently, complainant approached the office of the OP no.1 and moved an application and then the officials of the OP no.1 told the complainant that the meter installed at the house of the complainant is not showing reading. Thus, it requires to be replaced with a new one and then the OP no.1 had again charged Rs.1,000/- from the complainant for installing a new electric meter, vide receipt no.365. After receiving the said amount of Rs.1000/-, OP no.1 installed a new electric meter at the premises of complainant and removed the old meter. Thereafter, the officials of the OP no.1 told the complainant that as per reading of the old meter (which has been removed by them) comes to 8280 units and the complainant will have to pay the alleged amount of Rs.39,950/-, which is totally incorrect as the said 8280 units have not been consumed by the complainant. Moreover, complainant had been paying electricity charges regularly to the office of OP no.1 since 01.01.2017 and nothing is due against the complainant. The complainant has requested the officials of the OP no.1 several times to correct the amount of electricity bill but the officials of OP no.1 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to correct the aforesaid bill and are adamant to recover the alleged amount of Rs.39,950/- from the complainant illegally and forcibly. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant in collusion with the meter reader got blocked the reading of the meter. He has paid the bill upto the reading of 1060 units but when the meter was checked by the official of Nigam the reading of the meter was found 8281 units which is duly mention in the LL.1986/50 hence he is liable to pay the bill of difference of reading which comes to 7221 units. The complainant objected that his meter in not OK and then meter was removed and checked in the M&T laboratory  in the presence of complainant and in the laboratory said meter was found OK hence an amount of Rs.39898/- are chargeable from the complainant. It is further pleaded that amount in question is actually due and recoverable from the complainant regarding the actual consumption of electricity and complainant is liable to pay the same and has no right to ask to withdraw the said amount. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW/1, copy of bill dated 20.12.2019 Ex.C1, bill receipts Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, copy of bill dated 19.05.2019 Ex.C4, copy of bill dated 18.06.2019 Ex.C5, copy of receipt Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 14.01.2020 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, OPs have tendered into evidence affidavit of Raj Kumar LDC Ex.OP1/A, M&T lab. report Ex.OP1, LL-1 checking report Ex.OP2, copy of sundry report Ex.OP3 and Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 14.12.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for OPs and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently submitted that complainant is holder of domestic electricity connection bearing A/c no.122kj301349y. Complainant has received a bill amounting to Rs.39,950/- for the period from 07.05.2019 to 07.06.2019. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs for rectification of the said bill but OPs did not pay any heed to his genuine request. Complainant further submitted that he visited the office of the OPs several times for correction of the abovesaid bill but OPs did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per-contra, learned counsel for OPs argued that the complainant got blocked the reading with the collusion of the meter reader. Complainant paid the bill upto the reading of 1060 units but when the meter was checked by the official of Nigam the reading of the meter was found 8281 units. Thus, he is liable to pay the bill of difference of reading, which comes to 7221 units. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             Admittedly, the complainant is consumer of OPs and using the electricity connection bearing no.122kj301349y.

10.           It is pertinent to mention here that the written version filed by the OPs is not signed by the authorized person of the OPs, only signed by their counsel. As per order 6 Rule 14 CPC, every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader. Order 6 Rule 14 CPC is reproduced as under:-

14. Pleading to be signed:- 

Every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any):

Provided that where a party pleading is, by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorized by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf.  

 

                Since the written version has not been signed by the party itself, thus written version as well as evidence of OPs cannot be considered.

11.           On the other hand, to prove his version complainant placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill dated 20.12.2019 Ex.C1, bill receipts Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, copy of bill dated 19.05.2019 Ex.C4, copy of bill dated 18.06.2019 Ex.C5, copy of receipt Ex.C6. Hence, the evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.

12.            As per the bills Ex.C1, Ex.C4 and Ex.C5, complainant regularly paying the electricity consumption charges to the OPs except the disputed bill. OPs have taken a plea that complainant got blocked the reading of the meter with the collusion of meter reader.  In this regard, we are of the considered view that complainant cannot be blamed for the wrong act committed by the official of the OPs i.e. meter reader.

13.           For the sake of arguments, if the plea taken by the OPs be considered then there is no evidence on the file to prove the version of the OPs. The OPs have miserably failed to explain on what basis they have come to the conclusion that reading was 8280 units at the time of removing the meter in question.

14.           OPs have merely relied upon the document Ex.OP3 which does not bear the signature of the person, who had prepared the said document. The disputed bill has been issued by the OPs on the basis of the said document. Hence, the said document cannot be tenable in the eyes of law. Thus, we found no substance in the contention of the OPs.

15.           Further, on perusal of M&T Lab. Report Ex.OP1, in which it is mentioned that meter accuracy, cannot be checked being reading display defective. Reading retrieves by zig. No tampering is observed. When at the time of checking no tampering was found then OPs cannot blamed the complainant that he failed to deposit the bill as per actual consumption. Thus, act of the OPs for issuing the bill of Rs.39,950/- amounts to deficiency in service.

16.           It is evident on file from Ex.C3 on the direction of this Commission the complainant has deposited Rs.10,000/- on 11.12.2019.  Hence, complainant is also entitled for refund or adjust the said amount in future electricity bills.

17.           In view of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs not to charge the bill amount claimed in Ex.C5 as Rs.39,950/- and any surcharge accrued thereupon from the complainant. The amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited by the complainant, be adjusted in further electricity bills of the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:22.03.2022                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

  (Vineet Kaushik)     

  Member