Haryana

Ambala

CC/224/2013

ASHOK GULATI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO UHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

P.S SHARMA

03 Jul 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 224 of 2013

                                                          Date of Institution         : 04.09.2013

                                                          Date of decision   : 03.07.2017

          Ashok Gulati S/o Sh. Ram saran Gulati R/o 7-F, New Model Colony,      Ambala City.  

……. Complainant.

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Executive Engineer, Operation Division, UHBVN, Ambala City.
2. The Sub Divisional officer, Operation Sub Division, UHBVN; Model Town, Ambala City.  

 ….…. Respondents.

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

Present:       Sh. P.S. Sharma, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Saravjeet Singh, counsel for OPs.

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant is the permanent resident of house No.7-F, New Model Colony, Ambala City and is having a domestic electricity connection from the OP vide A/C No.MT03-2012-F with a sanctioned load of 9KW and paying the electricity bills regularly which are being received by the complainant from the OP for the consumption of electricity being consumed by the complainant and as such the complainant is getting service against consideration from the OP. Further submitted, on 07.11.2012 , some officials of the OPs came to the premises of the complainant to check the energy meter installed against the electricity connection but he officials of the checking party without checking the energy meter with the help of any instrument or device verbally stated to the complainant that the meter installed against the electricity connection of the complainant is defective and working slowly and as such the meter of the complainant was replaced with another meter by them. Further submitted that the complainant received notice from the office of OP No.2  and stated that the complainant was required to appear before M&T Lab Dhulkot, as the meter removed from the premises of the complainant will be checked in is presence. On this intimation, the complainant visited M&T Lab Dhulkot on 19.06.2013. Though the meter was not checked in the presence of the complainant, however, it was told to the complainant that everything is ok. Further submitted that the complainant shocked when the complainant received a notice on 24.06.2013 bearing memo no.1356/MT/CA/2 dated 20.06.2013 vide which it was stated that amount for the period 1/12 to 11/12 has been less charged against the electricity connection in question as the meter installed against the electricity connection in question remained slow in the period and the complainant was informed that an amount of Rs.14,897/- is proposed to be charged. On receipt of the said notice dated 20.06.2013, the complainant approached the OP No.1 and told that the proposed amount to be charges is illegal against the factual position as the department has already charged the excess amount from him on the basis of average/minimum charges, subject to overhauling the account of the complainant on the basis of corresponding last period, during which the energy meter was considered to be correct or on the basis of the consumption recorded by the energy meter installed by removing the alleged defective/slow meter. Further submitted that on receipt of the bill dated 28.07.2013, the complainant approached the OP No.2 to withdraw the amount of Rs.15,015/- charged wrongly and illegally and to overhaul the account of the complainant as per sales circular No.U-29/2011 dated 07.09.2011 issued by the UHBVN for billing of consumer during the period the energy meter remains defective/dead stop etc. and refund the amount already charged if found to be payable by the complainant. But the OP No.2 totally refused to consider the genuine request of the complainant and ordered the complainant to deposit the whole of the amount failing which the electricity connection in question shall be disconnected and shall not be restored till the full demanded amount is not deposited. However, on the request of the complainant, the OP No.2 agreed to accept the part payment of Rs.11,100/- and accordingly complainant deposited Rs.11,100/- as part payment on 08.08.2013 reserving his right to recover the same alongwith interest and cost. The complainant further submitted that bill dated 28.07.2013 for an amount of Rs.22,207/- in which an amount of Rs.15,015/- has been added as sundry charges/allowances against electricity connection No.MT03-2012F of the complainant is illegal, null and void. The cause of action arose in favour of complainant and against the OP firstly on 20.06.2013 when the complainant received the notice from the OP NO.2, thereafter on 28.07.2013 vide which demand of Rs.15,015/- as sundry charges with the current consumption bill was issued wrongly and illegally, thereafter when the complainant deposited Rs.11,100/- as part payment on 08.08.2013 under compulsion, and lastly payment on 30.08.2013 when the complainant met the OP No.2 and requested to overhaul the account of the complainant by overhauling the same as per sales circular                     No.U-29/2011 dated 07.09.2011, but the OP No.2 totally refused to consider the genuine request of the complainant of overhauling the account of the complainant by withdrawing the wrong and illegal amount of Rs.15,015/- demanded vide bill dated 28.07.2013 and circular No.U-29/2011 dated 07.09.2011 and also threatened to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant in question bearing A/c No.MT03-2012-F in case the total amount is not deposited and the cause of action is continuing one, at Ambala City. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement submitting that the meter installed against the electricity connection of the complainant was checked by the employees of Yadav Measurement Private Limited herein after called as YMPL vide test report No.116135/4646 and the meter of the complainant was found to be slow by -53.56% and the copy of the report was given to the complainant. It is not out of place to mention here that YMPL is the company to which UHVBN under an agreement had outsourced the job of checking the accuracy of the meters of its consumers. On the basis of report of YMPL the checking party comprising the employees of UHBVN inspected the premises of the complainant for the purpose of checking the electricity connection, in the presence of the complainant on 07.11.2012. During checking, the checking party removed the meter of the complainant for the purpose of getting the same checked from M&T Lab. After removal the meter was packed in cardboard box at the spot duly signed by checking party and complainant and the checking report dated 07.11.2012 was prepared at the spot which was signed by the complainant in token correctness of facts stated therein and by the members of the checking party. Further submitted that the meter of the complainant was checked in M&T Lab in his presence on 19.06.2013 and result of the checking was reduced to writing in the form of the report which was duly signed by the complainant. Further submitted that since the meter of the complainant was found to be slow by 53.56% so, the department has suffered loss of revenue on that count as the complainant has consumed the unaccounted units of electricity, the consumption of which was not recorded by the energy meter of the complainant. So, the actual consumption of the complainant during the period of January 2012 to November 2012 was worked out on the basis of consumption recorded by the meter of the complainant and the percentage by which the meter was found slow. So after working out actual consumption, demand for the cost of unaccounted units of electricity for the above period was made from the complainant vide notice bearing memo No.1356/MT/CA/2, dated 20.06.2013. Vide the aforementioned memo a sum of Rs.14,897/- was demanded from the complainant by the OP No.2. vide the aforesaid notice an opportunity to represent against the above demand was also given to the complainant but the complainant failed to make any representation against the above mentioned demand with in the period stipulated in the above mentioned notice. So, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-5 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has also tendered affidavit as Annexure –               R-X alonwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-10 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. It is admitted fact that meter in question of the complainant was checked by YMPL i.e. Yadav Measurement Pvt. Ltd. and the company has found that the meter in question was slow by -53.56% and report in the regard was submitted by company to OP. At the time of checking of meter in question, checking party removed the meter of the complainant for the purpose of getting the same checked from M&T Lab and same was send to the M&T Lab for testing.  The meter in question was checked by M&T Lab vide checking Report of Meter Annexure R-8 dated 19.06.2013 and they made the remarks as under:-

                   “Meter already checked by the M/s YMPL/other Agency & found slow by -53.56%. However, meter is slow due to some initial defects”.

                   From the perusal of the above said report, it is clear that the M&T lab has not checked the meter in question and the same has been sent to the OP on the report of the YMPL, Company ltd. It is very astonishing to this Forum that why the M&T Lab has not checked the meter especially when the meter was sent for accuracy of the meter but they did not do of such sort, reasons best known to them Therefore, the said report having no value in the eye of the law and the account of the complainant has been wrongly overhauled on the basis of the M&T Lab report. Hence, we are of confirmed view that the complainant is not liable to pay the amount Rs. 15015/- shown in the bill dated 28.07.2013 as sundry charges/allowances and notice dated 20.06.2013 vide Memo No. No.1356/MI/CA/2 issued to the complainant on the basis of the checking report of M&T Lab is hereby quashed.

                   It is clear from the record that the complainant has deposited 50% total amount of the bill dated 28.07.2013 as Annexure C-2. However, as per the calculation, the complainant had deposited the excess amount of Rs.3908/- (11100/-7192/- i.e. current bill). However, in the interest of justice, OPs are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant for the disputed period of January, 2012 to November 2012 on the basis of average of one year consumption of the new meter and be adjusted the excess amount of Rs.3908/- which was deposited on 08.08.2013. Hence, the present complaint is disposed of as per above said direction. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on :03.07.2017                                     

                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                              (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

                     Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

                                                                                  Sd/-

           (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                       Member