Haryana

Panchkula

CC/253/2016

RICHA ARORA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO,OP DIVN UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

02 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

Richa Arora, age 30 years, w/o Sh.Gulshandeep Singh, R/o # 3D, Staff Quarter, Civil Hospital Campus, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

SDO, OP/Div, UHBVN, A-27, Sub Urban, Sector-15, Panchkula, Haryana.

2^nd Address:-

U.H.B.V.N. Ltd., Operation Division Panchkula, Flat No.517 & 518, Power Colony, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula.

                                                                      ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

                             Mr.Y.P.Rana, Adv., for the Ops.

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Op with the averments that the electric meter was installed in the premises of the complainant in January, 2014 and she was paying the electricity bills regularly. In the month of September, 2015, the Op issued an electricity bill of 720 units. After checking the meter reading, the husband of the complainant found that there was a difference of approximate 6000 units in the meter and in the bill. In the bill of November 2015, the Ops issued bill of 3430 units but the meter was showing 9504 units on 14.12.2015. The husband of the complainant brought that fact to the notice of the meter reader, who also recorded his mistake/fault on the back side of the electricity bill and duly signed the documents and also assured the complainant that his mistake would be corrected in the next bill. But in the month of January, 2016, the Ops issued the bill of 2004 units for an amount of Rs.17105/- without correction in the bill. The complainant lodged the complaint online on 11.01.2016 at
2. The Op appeared before this Forum and filed written statement. It is submitted that the complainant was having electricity connection vide account No.PS36-3710. It is submitted that in the month of May, 2014, the electricity connection was installed in the name of the complainant and since the date of installation, the Op was sending the electricity bill as per the actual consumption. It is submitted that the complainant paid the electricity bill till January, 2016 but after the month of January, 2016 the complainant did not deposit the electricity bill amount. The Op issued the electricity bills on actual consumption but the complainant failed to deposit the same, therefore, an amount of Rs.60,537/- was outstanding in the month of July, 2016 against the complainant. On 26.08.2016, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- as part payment out of total amount of Rs.60,537/- and an amount of Rs.35,537/- was outstanding against the complainant, thereafter, the electricity bill of the consumption was issued to the complainant with an amount of Rs.44,576/- till September, 2016 was outstanding against the complainant. It is submitted that on 26.09.2016, the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.27,240/- as part payment and amount of Rs.25,550/- remained outstanding against the complainant. Thereafter, bill of consumption was also issued and an amount of Rs.52,790/- was outstanding against the complainant till November, 2016. It is submitted that bill of 2004 units for Rs.17,105/- was issued to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has not deposited the amount of bill since January, 2016 to November, 2016 except two installments made by her. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. The complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-22 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the Op has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith document Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.
4. Heard. The complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the Op has reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. From a conjunctive perusal of the pleadings made by the parties, it would appear to the beyond the pale of controversy that the complainant had been regularly paying the electricity bills upto the month of January, 2016. The controversy arose thereafter only when the complainant found that she had been billed far in excess of the actual consumption. The complainant, a junior official in the Health Department of the Government of Haryana and in occupation of official accommodation at the Hospital Campus itself, is a part of three member family-the other two being her husband and a minor child (identity card Annexure C-1), had been consistently complaining to the billing authority (Annexure C-18, C-19 and C-20 dated 18.03.2016, 04.08.2016 and 12.08.2016 respectively). She also e-mailed a complaint to the authorities higher to the billing authority (Annexure C-21 and C-22) too.

That the complainant made the above grievance would find mention in the course of Para 5, 6, 11 and 12 of the complaint. In the course of reply, the Ops admitted the contents of Para 5 and 12 to be correct. Insofaras, Para No.6, 8 and 11 are concern, the reply does not deny the receipt of the complaint. The relevant paras of the written statement only aver that the bill was presented to the complainant for payment but that she did not pay up. Ideally, nay compulsively, the corresponding paras of the reply had to controvert the correctness of the averment made by the complainant about the making of complaint to the addressed authorities in question.

Further the Ops would want this Fourm to believe that they accepted an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the complainant as part payment out of the total bill amount of Rs.60,537/-. The averment is that the complainant had been billed for that amount (Rs.60,537/-) in the month of July, 2016. It is further averment that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.27,240/- on 26.09.2016 as part payment and the outstanding balance thereafter was Rs.25,550/- which was to be paid by the complainant.

6. In the normal course of things, a part payment by a ‘chronic’ defaulter (as the Ops would want the complainant to be nomenclature) would not be accepted by the Ops without documenting the transaction. Prudence would require that even if the receipt of a part payment is acceptable in terms of the relevant administrative instructions/rule formulation, the officials would obtain a request for the purpose, get it allowed from the competent authority and proceed to accept the deposit only thereafter. The facts aforementioned may be appreciated in the light of the affidavit-cemented averment by the complainant that the part payments were made only on the asking of the SDO concerned. There is no denial of that attribution by the Ops. The least the Ops could do was to file an affidavit of the concerned SDO to deny that averment.
7. While noticing, even at the cost of repetition, the professional placement of the complainant-as a junior official, evident from the identity card (Annexure C-1), we find preponderance in favour of the complainant in the matter of approval of the grievance. Further, it is not even the averment on behalf of the Ops that they ever got the meter checked in the presence of an independent authority and after notification to the complainant.
8. For the reasons recorded hereinbefore in the proceeding paras of this order, we would no hesitation in holding that the complainant has been able to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops. The complaint shall stand accordingly in the terms enumerated hereunder:-
   1. The Ops shall bill the complainant afresh (for the period under default) on the basis of the average billing during the preceding six months (by taking into consideration the consumption for the six months preceding January, 2016). The payments of Rs.25,550/- and Rs.27,240/- would be adjusted towards the payment to be made by the complainant.

2. The Ops shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to her.

3. The Ops shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant.

9. The Ops shall comply with this order within a period of one months from the date of its communication to them comes about. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of costs, to the parties to the complaint. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
10. While concluding, we would like to say that the Ops and their likes (in terms of identical placement) must respond to the grievance of the relevant facet of citizenry to avoid a charge of arbitrariness, imprudence and want of transparency.

Announced

02.06.2017  JAGMOHAN SING      ANITA KAPOOR       DHARAM PAL

                     MEMBER                  MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                                ANITA KAPOOR                                                                                               MEMBER