Haryana

Panchkula

CC/126/2019

MRS.MADHU GARG. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

28 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	126 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	27.02.2019
Date of Decision	:	28.07.2022

 

Smt. Madhu Garg w/o Sh. Tarsem Garg owner and R/o at H.No.1641 Sector 4 Panchkula Haryana.                                                                                                                              ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

1.     SDO OP S/Division UHBVNL, A-27 Sub Urban Panchkula.

2.     The XEN/OP Division UHBVNL Panchkula.

                                                                          ……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties: Sh. Tarsem Garg, Authorised representative of the       complainant.

                         Sh. Y.P.Rana, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

                       

ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini Member)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant is having an electricity connection at her residence in the name of Smt.Usha Murgia, the previous owner, and sanctioned load is 13.60 KW A/C No.787855000. The complainant did not receive the bill for the period of 10.08.2018 to 07.10.2018. The derived amount of this bill from the bill no.787857119739 was Rs.33,407/-. In this connection, the complainant visited the office of the OP No.1 for a number of times. After lots of efforts, the complainant got the bill for the period 10.08.2018 to 07.10.2018 and surprised that the first bill of 817 units was revised to 4199 units. On enquiry, it was told that the meter had been changed on 25.08.2018 and the bill was raised on actual meter reading. The complainant submitted a statement of units consumption for the last 4 years to the Ops then the OP NO.1 instructed his official to correct  the bill and asked the complainant to deposit Rs.20,000/- which she deposited under protest but the complainant received  the next bill without any correction for Rs.30,301/-. The act of OPs for non providing proper services to the complainant is deficiency in service on their part, which certainly caused physical and mental harassment to the complainant; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notices OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has not come with clean hands; suppressed the material facts; no locus standi and no cause of action. It is stated that the electricity connection Account no.7878550000 has been installed in the name of the One Usha Murgia as per the record, therefore, the complainant has got no right to file the present complaint. As per the electricity meter of account no.7878550000 was running defective for the period from 11.06.2017 and since then the OPs were sending the bill on average basis and the consumer was paying the electricity bill to the department as per average basis bill issued by the OPs. Thereafter, on 09.06.2018, the OPs have installed a new meter in place of the defective electricity meter and the OPs have issued the bill for a period of four months for 4199 units for an amount of Rs.33407/ but the consumer has not deposited the outstanding amount with the OPs. Thereafter, on 31.12.2018, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.20,000 out of the total amount and thereafter, the consumer has paid an amount of Rs.7554/ on 01.03.2019  and out of the total amount, an amount of Rs.25105/ is outstanding against the consumer and he is liable to pay the outstanding amount. It is further stated that the the consumer is liable to make the outstanding amount to the Ops as per the rules of the Nigam and the electricity meter installed by the Ops is OK and there is no default in the said meter.  Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             The Authorised representative of the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C1 to C3 and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Annexure R/A along with documents Annexure R1 & R2 and closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard the authorized representative of the complainant as well as the learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the entire record available on the file including written arguments filed by the complainant , minutely and carefully.

5.             In the present complaint, the complainant has disputed the correctness of the demand raised by the Ops under the head of arrears/ outstanding due to the tune of Rs.33 407.22  vide bill dated 19.12.2018 Annexure C 2 has been disputed. During arguments, the authorized representative of the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint contended that no bill was received by the complainant qua the electric consumption made by the complainant w.e.f. 10.08.2018 to 07.10.2018. It is contended that in electric bill showing of consumption of 1870 units was initially prepared by the Ops for the said period, which was later revised to 4199 units. It is contended that the demand raised by the Ops qua the consumption of 4199 units was against the consumption pattern. It is further contended that electric meter having pre recorded reading was changed without the notice and knowledge of the complainant and thus, has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by directing the Ops to refund the amount paid in excess.

6.             The Ops have resisted the complaint by raising preliminary objections as well as on merits in their written statement, wherein the plea has been taken that the complainant does not fall under the category of consumer as electric connection in question was installed in the name of one Usha Margia.

This objection is rejected as the complainant being the resident of the house no. 1641, Sector-4, Panchkula, Haryana  by virtue of re-allottement letter  dated 16.03.2011 issued by Haryana Urban Development Authority is the actual user of the electricity vide electric connection in question wherein the electric connection.

 On merits, it is alleged that the meter was running defective from 11.06.2017 and accordingly, the demands qua the consumption of the electricity made by the complainant were raised on average basis. The learned counsel contended that the defective meter was replaced on 09.06.2018 and the bill was raised for a period of four months qua the consumption of electricity for 4199 units for a sum of Rs.33,407/ The learned counsel contended that the demand has been raised on the basis of actual consumption and there is no illegality on the part of the Ops while raising the demand amounting to Rs.33,407/ qua consumption of 4199 units and thus, prayer has been made for the dismissal of the complaint being baseless and meritless.

The Ops in their defence had relied upon the duplicate copy of meter change order hereinafter referred as MCO Annexure R1 as well as abstract of sundries Annexure R-2. Having perused the MCO  Annexure R1 it is found that a date i.e. 25.09.2017 has been mentioned on the top of it, which has not been clarified as to which it conveys. The Annexure R1 MCO Annexure R1 has been claimed to be duplicate, which is placed on record of this case on 25.11.2019 whereas it bears the signatures of some officials without  their designation with  the date as 09.06.2018, which is apparently wrong and incorrect. . As per Annexure R2 under the column of the meter status MCO has been shown in the month of August 2018 against the entry made in column no.6 and thus, falsify the contentions of the Ops that Meter was changed in the month of June 2018. No other cogent and adequate documentary evidence has been placed on record on behalf of the Ops to establish that meter was replaced in the month of June, 2018 instead of Aug, 2018 as alleged by the complainant. Further, no justification has been placed on record for non filing of the certified/ or attested copy of the original MCO.

7.             Now, coming to the details contained in abstract of sundries Annexure R2, it is found that there are several flaws and infirmities in it. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the contents of said abstract of sundries Annexure R2  is reproduced as under:-

Sr. No.	Month	IR	FR	Consumption	Meter status	Net pending dues	Amt. deposited by consumer	Date
1	3/19	5456	6612	1156	Ok	29465	836 20000	30301 31.12.18
2	1/19	4199	5456	1257	OK	41311	1200	42511
3	11/18	1	4199	4198	OK	32464          943 -4864		33407
4	11/18
5		1	L	817	cancel	4865	141	5006
6	8/18	68168	76168	532 0	MCO	5896	170	606
7	6/18	76168	76168	901	F	5504	159	5663
8	4/18		76168	817	F	4905	143	5048
9	2/18	68168	F	789	F	4737	139	4876
10	12/17	68164	68168	930	F	10628	311	10939
11	10/17	18167	61164	825	F	4859	142	5001
12	8/17	71450	68167	1049	F	6419	188	6607

           

8.             A perusal of the above would reveal that the initial reading IR shown against serial no.6 of Annexure R2 is 68168 units and final reading FR is shown as 76168 units and thus, the consumption of electricity should  have been as 8000 but surprisingly in the column of consumption, it has been shown as 532 units, which is patently incorrect, invalid and illegal. Against the entry made in serial no.5, initial reading IR shown has been shown as 1 and final reading has been shown as L but consumption has been shown as  817 units Further, the entries against serial no.4 have been left blank providing no justification for the same.  Against the serial No.3, the initial reading has been shown as 1 whereas final reading has been shown as 4199. It is not clear as to how and under what circumstances, the consumption shown of 817 units in the month of November, 2018 was cancelled. From the bare reading of said Annexure R2, total vague and confusing picture has been found. The Ops have not rebutted the specific and categorical contentions of the complainant made in para no.3 of the complaint that meter which was changed/replaced having pre-recorded reading. In the corresponding para of the reply, there is not even a single averments about the pre-recorded reading in the replaced meter as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, the version of the complainant is found to be reasonable, justified and correct in the light of above discussion whereas the version of the Ops is found vague, confusing and contrary to actual facts and thus, the complainant is entitled to relief on account of deficient  service rendered by the Ops.

9.             In view of the abovementioned fact the complaint is partly allowed by directing the OPs to issue the fresh bill in place of disputed bill by charging for consumption of 817 units in place of 4199 units as demanded by OPs vide disputed bill Annexure C2. As per unrebutted contentions of the complainant, a sum of Rs.20 000/- has already been paid by her to the OPs qua the demand raised vide disputed bill; hence, the OPs are directed to adjust the said sum of Rs.20 000 if made in excess  by the complainant, in future consumption charges. Further, the OPs are directed to compensate the complainant by making a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/ on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigations charges

10.            The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 28.07.2022

 

 

          Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini             Satpal

                  Member                  Member                          President

 

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

 

                                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini

                                                Member