Haryana

Karnal

CC/636/2021

Nayab Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

Gulshan Chopra

23 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.636 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.16.11.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:23.08.2024

 

Nayab Singh son of Shri Prem Chand, resident of village Rajepur, Tehsil Indri District Karnal, age 48 years (Aadhar card no.6689 6568 0378). Mobile no.86840-68000.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVN, Sub Division, L-24, Sub Urban, Indri District Karnal.
2. XEN, UHBVN, Sector-12, District Karnal.

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur……Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Gulshan Chopra, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Bhanu Partap Singh, counsel for the OPs.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant got installed new electricity meter/connection no.0683921000 of DS category of village Rajepur Tehsil Indtri District Karnal for domestic use. Since the day of installation of meter, OPs used to sent the bill on average basis accordingly, the complainant is depositing the due charges with the OP no.1 regularly. The official of the OPs used to get recorded the different readings of the said meter/connection of the complainant, accordingly OPs used to sent the bill on different average basis. In the month of October, June, the OPs sent huge bill of 4749.7 units. After receiving said bill complainant visited to OPs and requested for correction of the bill. Then OPs assured that they will correct the bills according to meter reading, if any fault is there. It is further alleged that prior to that bills the complainant consumed units 122 in June 2021 of Rs.820/-, 4947 in July 2021 of Rs.38292/-, 620.20 units in August, 2021 of Rs.42419, 764.50 units in September, 2021 of Rs.47226/- and 339.50 in November, 2021 of Rs.49292/- but in the bill for the month of July 2021 the OPs shown 4947.7 from 10.06.2021 to 08.07.2021. Due to this act and conduct of the OPs, complainant has suffered a lot of harassment, mental pain and agony as well as financial loss. 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; jurisdiction; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the bill in question is regarding the actual consumption of electricity and no excess amount has been credited in the account of complainant. The bill in question has rightly been sent to the complainant as per actual consumption of electricity shown by the meter of the complainant. It is further pleaded that the Meter Reader could not take the reading of the premises of the complainant as said work has been given to private agency and as such the bills were sent on average basis but when the reading of the said consumption was taken by Meter Reader then the account of the complainant was overhauled by the OPs and after making all adjustment an amount of Rs.37,454/- were found payable by complainant to the OPs and for that, the bill dated 22.07.2021 was issued to the complainant, which is quite ok as per the actual consumption and complainant is liable to pay the same. Prior to present bill, the bills were issued to complainant on average basis as the reading was not available in the office of OPs. However, after issuing bill dated 22.07.2021, the reading was regularly taken by the Meter Reader and then the bills have been issued as per actual consumption. There is no problem or defect in the meter of complainant. 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.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of electricity bills dated 14.05.2021, 29.07.2021, 08.08.2021, 14.09.2021, 11.10.2021, 20.12.2021, 14.01.2022, 20.01.2022, 10.03.2022, 18.04.2022 Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 29.04.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Narender Kumar LDC Ex.OP1/A, copy of electricity bill dated 22.07.2021 Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 24.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is having domestic electricity connection in his house. Since the day of installation, OPs sent the electricity bills on average basis, which were duly paid by the complainant. Complainant received a bill dated 22.07.2021 for an amount of Rs.38,292/-, which was not as per the actual consumption. On receipt of said bill, complainant approached the OPs and requested to correct the bill but OPs did not pay any attention to the request of complainant and refused to correct the same 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 the bill was rightly issued to the complainant as per actual consumption and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

10.           OPs have alleged that the account of the complainant was overhauled and after making all adjustment an amount of Rs.37,454/- were found payable and the bill Ex.OP1 dated 22.07.2021 was issued to the complainant, which is quite ok and as per the actual consumption. The onus to prove its version was relied upon the OPs but OPs have miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. OPs have placed on file only affidavit of Narender Kumar LDC Ex.OP1/A and copy of disputed electricity bill dated 22.07.2021 Ex.OP1, except these documents there is nothing on the file that meter of the complainant was overhauled by the OPs and excess reading was found. OPs have alleged that reading was taken by private agency and bills were sent on average basis, if the actual reading has not been taken by the private agency engaged by the OPs for that complainant cannot be blamed. The electricity bills were issued by the OPs and complainant cleared the same without any fault. The sanctioned load is only 1KW. OPs issued bills Ex.C1, Ex.C3 to Ex.C10 and complainant cleared all the bills without any delay. OPs have neither placed on file report with regard to overhauling the account of complainant nor examined the person who had overhauled the account. Hence, it appears that the disputed bill sent by the OPs on the basis of presumption and assumption, which cannot be admissible in the eyes of law. Thus, act of the OPs for issuing the bill of Rs.38,292/- amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

11.           On the direction of this Commission the complainant has deposited 35% of the disputed amount i.e. Rs.38,292/-.  Hence, complainant is also entitled for refund or adjust the said amount in future electricity bills.

12.           In view of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs not to charge the bill amount claimed in Ex.C2/Ex.OP1 dated 22.07.2021 of Rs.38,292/- and any surcharge accrued thereupon from the complainant. The amount deposited by the complainant as per direction of the Commission, be adjusted in further electricity bills of the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,000/- 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:23.08.2024

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

                (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                        Member