Haryana

Karnal

CC/480/2022

Sultan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                      Complaint No. 480 of 2022

                                                      Date of instt.18.08.2022

                                                      Date of Decision:31.08.2023

 

Sultan Singh son of Shri Inder Singh, resident of village Kutail tehsil Ghauranda, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. SDO, Gramin Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Ghauranda, District Karnal.

 

2. XEN, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Karnal.

 

…..Opposite Parties.

       

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

Argued by: Complainant in person.

                    Shri Rajbir Sharma, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary, Member)

ORDER:                    

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is consumer of OPs and having electricity connection in his premises bearing no.7369422000. Complainant is regularly paying the electricity bill. Two years ago, government of Haryana launched a ‘Jagmag Scheme’ and complainant has taken the electricity under the said scheme from the OPs. Due to which, OPs no.1 has installed the new meter and removed the old meter of the complainant. Complainant has also paid all the bills under the abovesaid scheme and nothing is due against him. In the month of July, OPs have sent a bill of Rs.16,000/- as arrear of old meter. Complainant visited the office of OPs several times and requested to remove the said illegal arrear. After repeated requests, OP no.2 ordered to OP no.1 to remove the abovesaid arrear but OP no.1 did not remove the same and in the month of August, OPs sent the bill mentioning the abovesaid arrear. Complainant is a senior citizen and due to this act and conduct of OPs, he is mentally, physical  and financially harassed by the OPs.  In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus sandi; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that on 08.04.2022 the account of the complainant was checked by the Internal Audit Department of the Nigam and during the course of audit it has been noted that reading has been omitted. However, as per SC & AR 367/85/191 amount of Rs.4275/- was refunded during 21.10.2020 for reading 2871 KW. The difference of reading was found to be charged for 2990 units i.e. 5861-2871=2990 units and the total chargeable amount of Rs.16177/- was found due and recoverable from the complainant. The complainant was asked to pay the said amount but he did not bother for the same and then same was debited in the account of the complainant and that amount is legally payable by him to the OPs. 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.CW1/A, copies of electricity bills dated 14.01.2023, 01.02.2023, July, 2022, March, 2022 and August, 2022 and closed the evidence on 02.02.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ashish Mahal SDO Ex.OP1/A, copy of sundry Ex.OP1, copy of internal audit department half margin Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 12.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

 6.            We have heard complainant and learned counsel for the 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 the complaint and submitted that he is having an electricity connection in his premises and is paying the electricity bill regularly. In the year 2020, he has taken the electricity under the ‘Jagmag Scheme’ due to which, OP no.1 has installed the new meter and removed his old meter. In the month of July, OPs have sent a bill of Rs.16,000/- as arrear of old meter. He visited the office of OPs several times and requested to remove the said illegal arrear and corrected the bill but OPs did not remove the same. He is ready to pay the actual electricity consumption charges and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that on 08.04.2022 the account of the complainant was checked by the Internal Audit Department of the Nigam and during the course of audit it has been noted that reading has been omitted. The amount of Rs.4275/- was refunded during 21.10.2020 for reading 2871 KW. The difference of reading was found to be charged for 2990 units and the total chargeable amount of Rs.16177/- was found due and recoverable from the complainant. The complainant was asked to pay the said amount but he did not bother for the same and then same was debited in the account of the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 9.            We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           The Government of Haryana had launched a ‘Jagmag Scheme’ and complainant had taken the electricity connection  under the said scheme from the OPs in the year 2020.

11.           The OPs has taken a plea that on 08.04.2022, Internal Audit Party of the Nigam has checked the account of the complainant and overhauled the same and found that the reading has been omitted. In this regard, there is no proof on file to prove that the reading has been omitted. Hence, the plea taken by the OPs has no force.

12.           Furthermore, as per version of the OPs that as per sundry Ex.OP1 and internal audit department half margin report Ex.OP2, the difference of reading was found to be charged for 2990 units and chargeable amount of Rs.16177/- was found due against the complainant. The said reports are in form of photocopies. Moreover, OPs have neither tendered the affidavits of the officials/officers nor examined the officials/officers in its evidence, who have prepared the said reports. Hence, the said reports have no values in the eyes of law.

13.            Thus, in view of the above, we are of the considered view that the OPs have failed to prove the charging of bill relating to the omitted reading by any cogent and convincing evidence. OPs had issued the bill of Rs.16177/- on the basis of presumption and assumption and not as per the actual consumption.  OPs have given new connection after removing the old meter and at that time they did not find omission of reading but lateron Audit Department has alleged that during checking the reading was found omitted. The said fact appears to be doubtful. Hence the demand of the OPs on the basis of higher units amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

14.           In view of the above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs not to charge the alleged amount of Rs.16177/- from the complainant. If any, amount has been deposited by the complainant, out of the demanded amount, the same be refunded or adjusted in the account of the complainant. OPs are also directed to issue the subsequent electricity bills relating to the new meter as per the actual electricity consumption for the period which was not paid by the complainant due to the disputed bill amount remains, if any. On issuing fresh bills complainant is also bound to clear the same. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.4000/- 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: 31.08.2023                     

                                                                  President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                              (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                                          Member