BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.65/15.

Date of instt.: 10.04.2015. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 21.01.2016.

Pala Ram S/o Radhey Shyam R/o Village Manas, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Secretary, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2. S.D.O., Division No.1, UHBVN, Kaithal, Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.

3. Executive Engineer, UHBVN Kaithal, Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.

..……..Opposite Parties.

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

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Shamsher Singh, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. R.S.Dhull, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got installed an electricity meter bearing account No.KU-16/4294N at his residential house and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that in the month of July, 2013 the complainant received his domestic electricity bill and in the said bill, 5136 units were shown to be consumed and for which the bill of Rs.35,897/- was sent by the Ops to the complainant.  The said bill is wrong, illegal and excessive.  It is further alleged that the complainant moved several applications to the Ops regarding excessive bill but the Ops did not rectify the said bill.  This act of Ops amounts to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true and material facts are that a bill amounting to Rs.35,897/- was issued to the complainant in the month of 6/2013, in which new reading was shown 6196 units, old reading was shown 1060 units and consumed units were shown 5136 (6196-1060=5136).  This bill was issued as per actual consumption being meter O.K.  So, this bill is legal, valid and justified but the complainant did not deposit this bill and is running defaulter.  So, upto the month of 2/2015, Rs.62,363/- are due towards the complainant.  So, the complainant is chronic defaulter of UHBVN.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.CA to Ex.CC and Mark-A to Mark-D and closed evidence on 15.10.2015.  On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 and document Ex.R2 and closed evidence on 20.11.2015.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

5.     From the pleadings and documents placed on the file and on appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, we found that it is not disputed that the complainant is having electricity connection No.KU-164294.  The dispute between the parties is with regard to the bill dt. 25.06.2013 for sum of Rs.35,897/-.  The complainant stated that the approved load of his connection is only 1 K.W. and he has a small house of one room and the units shown to have been consumed as 5136 are due to the default of the meter.  The Ops have stated that the bill is prepared on the actual reading consumed in the meter.  The complainant moved the applications dt. 02.07.2013, dt. 10.08.2013 and 10.09.2015 regarding the checking of meter and correctness of said disputed bill which were duly marked by the S.D.O, copy of said applications Mark-A to Mark-C have been placed on the file, but the Ops did not take any action on the said applications.  Thereafter, the complainant also moved an application to the S.D.O., U.H.B.V.N., Kaithal, Mark-D which was duly marked by the S.D.O. to the J.E. on 16.12.2014 with the directions that “Checked and report” and the J.E. has reported the working of meter as O.K. and the load have been shown on the back-side of said application as 2 fan, 4 tube, 1 T.V.  So, in view of the said load shown by the Ops, we found that when the load was less, then how the said meter would have showed the consumed units of 5136.  Inspite of applications moved by the complainant, the Ops have neither installed any check meter with the meter of complainant nor the meter of complainant was got checked from the laboratory regarding the jumping or any other reason for showing such higher consumption of the units.  So, there is no force in the contention of ld. Counsel for the Ops.  Therefore, the said bill dt. 25.06.2013 for sum of Rs.35,897/- as consumed units 5136 issued by the Ops is wrong and illegal.  In this regard, we are guided with the instructions of U.H.B.V.N. and as per instruction No.116, it has been mentioned as under:-

Difference or Dispute over the Accuracy.

        Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter is or is not correct, the matter should be decided, upon the application by either party by the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as amended from time to time and if in his opinion, the meter is not correct, the Electrical Inspector shall estimate the amount of adjustment to be carried out in the consumer’s account for a period not exceeding six months preceding the date of test. 

Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops in rendering services to the complainant. 

6.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and declare the bill in question as null and void and direct the Ops to overhaul the account of complainant and adjust all the paid bills according to the average of meter-reading of succeeding six months from the date of disputed bill i.e. dt.25.06.2013 and further to pay Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges.  All the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.21.01.2016.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.