Haryana

Ambala

CC/465/2016

Suraj Bhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

S.Rashmi

06 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                           Complaint No.:465 of 2016.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 28.12.2016.

                                                           Date of Decision: 06.04.2018.

 

Suraj Bhan (Retired Government Employee), resident of House No.40-D, Pooja Vihar Ambala Cantt. now deceased through his legal heirs:-

 

1. Sandeep Garg son of late Suraj Bhan r/o House No.201,       Palom Green, Delhi Road, near Godawari Hotel, Roorkee.
2. Anuj Garg son of late Suraj Bhan resident of House No.44    I.P. Colony Sector 30-33, Raridanbad.
3. Pardeep Kumar son of late Suraj Bhan resident of House      No.40-D, Pooja Vihar, behind Pooja Petrol Pump, Ambala Cantt.

 

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

 

The S.D.O. (Op), Sub Division, UHBVN Ltd. Babyal, (Ambala Cantt.) and others.

 

                                                                             …Opposite Party.

 

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

CORAM:    SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                                                          MS.ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

Present:                Mrs.Suraj Rashmi, Advocate for the complainant.

                             Sh.P.K.Bansal, counsel for the opposite parties.

 

ORDER:

 

                             Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that complainant Suraj Bhan (since deceased) had informed the Ops that meter No.YOZ-25-3634 installed at his house was running fast on 08.02.2016  and requested the Ops to get the same replaced by depositing requisite fee of Rs.140/-. The meter was replaced on 13.02.2016 and the Ops had assured that the meter would be checked in his presence but when information was received by him, he wrote a letter dated 22.04.2016 to OP.  The Ops had found the correct load of the house which was below 3 KV and it was not tampered.  The meter was not checked in his presence but the meter had consumed 7000 units in a day and the OPs had sent a bill ofRs.61753/- . The complainant had also intimated the Ops that the meter was jumped from 5953 to 13039 between 16.01.2016 to 12.02.2016 and the same had shown 7104/- units extra due to error. He had requested the Ops to correct the bill by writing many letters but to no avail and lastly, the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.68340/- by way of cheque under protest only to save future interest of Rs.2012/- per month. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C45.

2.                          On notice Ops appeared and filed their joint reply wherein preliminary objections such as maintainability, estoppal        and locus standi have been taken. It has been further submitted that on receipt of the information, Ops got checked the electricity meter a/c No.YD25-3634 from Meter Testing laboratory, UHBVN, Dhulkot on 20.07.2016. In the report the meter was found working within permissible limits and copy of the report was also supplied to the complainant but despite that the complainant had filed the present complaint.  After testing of the meter, no fast running was found in it and the bill was sent to the complainant for actual consumption of energy and reading existed in the meter which the complainant is liable to pay the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavit Annexure RA and documents Annexure R1 and Annexure R2.

3.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and documents on the file carefully.

4.                          Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the meter took jump from 5935 to 13039 units and due to this reason 7202 units were shown as consumed in the bill for the period from 15.01.2016 to 15.03.2016 and the Ops did not rectify the same despite moving applications by the complainant Annexure C7 to Annexure C9 and Annexure C12. He drew the attention of this Forum towards other electricity bills Annexure C13 to Annexure C15, Annexure C17 to Annexure C34 and in these previous bills the consumed units have been shown less than the bill sent for 7202 units. It has been further argued that the complainant had to pay the bill under compelling circumstances through cheque Annexure C3 because the OPs did not redress the grievance of the complainant. It has been further argued that the meter was not examined in the presence of the complainant; therefore, this report cannot be admissible in the eyes of law.

 5.                         On the other hand counsel for the OPs has argued that the Ops got checked the electricity meter a/c No.YD25-3634 from Meter Testing laboratory, UHBVN, Dhulkot on 20.07.2016. In the report the meter was found working within permissible limits and copy of the report was also supplied to the complainant but despite that the complainant had filed the present complaint.  After testing of the meter, no fast running was found in it and the bill was sent to the complainant for actual consumption of energy and reading existed in the meter which the complainant is liable to pay the same.

6.                          The point for determination before this Forum is that as to whether the opposite party has rightly issued the bill for the period from 15.01.2016 to 15.03.2016 to the complainant (since deceased) or not? A perusal of the impugned bill reveals that the meter has been shown as OK and complainant did not dispute about the correctness of the meter.  The complainant had moved applications Annexure C8, Annexure C9 and Annexure C12 mentioning there that the meter was running fast and requested to get the same tested from M&T lab in his presence besides installing the new meter. It is not disputed that the OPs had installed new meter. The opposite parties have taken a specific stand that the bill in dispute issued to the complainant is correct on the basis actual consumption as in the checking report the meter was found working within permissible limits in the report dated 09.0.2016 there is no signature of the complainant and the column meant for signature of the consumer has been left as Blank  which shows that the meter was not got checked either in the presence of the complainant or in the presence of his representative, therefore, this report cannot be read into evidence. When the report on the basis of which the case of the OPs stands is not valid and admissible in evidence then there remains nothing on the case file to rebut the version pleaded by the complainant.  The Ops have failed to show that as to how a meter can record the reading more than 7000 units in a month when the sanctioned load of the meter was 3 KV. Even in the checking report Annexure C37 the connected load was shown as 2.940 KV. Perusal of previous bills shows that the average consumption units was around 300 to 500 units, therefore, consumption of more than 7000 units in a month is not believable and it appears that the Ops have got prepared the said report in order to fill the lacuna. The complainant has been able to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, present complaint deserves acceptance.

7.                          In view of the aforementioned discussion we allow the present complaint and the bill Annexure C16 for 7202 units is hereby quashed.  Since the Ops are a government institution and work for the betterment of the society but it is worthwhile to mentioned here that the expenses on such like institutions are being incurred from the amount received from the tax payers, therefore, it would be appropriate if we direct the OPs to overhaul the account of the complainant for the period from 15.01.2016 to 15.03.2016 keeping in view the reading recorded by new meter for the period from 15.05.2016 to 15.05.2017 and after calculating the total consumed units for this period the bill for the period from 15.01.2016 to 15.03.2016 be charged on average basis. The amount deposited by the complainant be adjusted in the account of the complainant. It is ordered accordingly. The Ops are further directed to re-issue the bill after overhauling the electricity account without any surcharge. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED ON: 06.04.2018                                   (D.N. ARORA)

                            PRESIDENT                 

 

 

(ANAMIKA GUPTA)                                (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

     MEMBER                                                       MEMBER