Haryana

Karnal

CC/536/2020

Bimla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVNL Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vikran Singh

13 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 536 of 2020

                                                          Date of instt.27.11.2020

                                                          Date of Decision 13.01.2023

 

Bimla aged about 70 years wife of Shri Subhash Sharma, resident of house no.5075, Gali no.9/1, Shiv Colony, near Tata Tower, Karnal.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVN Ltd. Ram Nagar, Sub Division, Karnal.

 

                                                                    …..Opposite Parties.

 

      Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Vikrant Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Manoj Kumar Sachdeva, counsel for the OP.

 

                        (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is consumer of OP having electricity connection bearing no.6732710000, which is a domestic connection and complainant is having sanctioned load of 1.0 KW only since the day of installation of the said connection. Complainant has been paying the electricity charges regularly to the OP. The complainant is old aged and physically handicapped widow lady. She alone has been residing in her house and has been using only one bulb and one fan with said connection. She depends upon old age pension. In the month of January,2019 the meter installed in the premises of complainant was burnt and she immediately moved an application for replacement of the meter but same was not replaced by the OP. After repeated requests of complainant, meter was changed in the month of August, 2019 and in the meantime the OP send bills to the complainant on average basis which was duly paid by her. After replacement of meter, no bill was sent to the complainant. Complainant visited the office of OP so many times and requested to issue the electricity bill but OP did not do so and postponed the matter on saying that the bill is not being generated by the computer system. Complainant received a bill dated 17.09.2020 for an amount of Rs.75685/-. The said bill of the complainant is quite illegal, null and void, in effective and not binding on the rights of the complainant as the said amount is neither due nor recoverable from the complainant. On receipt of said bill, complainant contacted the OP and asked for reason of sending such excessive bill to her but OP has not given any satisfactory reply and complainant further asked for acceptance of current energy charges and to rectify the mistake in the bill but OP flatly refused to do so and threatened that if the complainant will not deposit the entire amount of the bill then her connection will be disconnected. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the amount in question relates to actual consumption of electricity consumed by the complainant and no excess or extra amount is being charged from the complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant had paid a sum of Rs.7000/- on 27.02.2018 and after this she is not paying the bill of the OP. The bill is due from March, 2018 till date. The bill is due as per consumption of electricity and meter reading was 5465  (19.07.2019 to 06.11.2020) when the smart meter was replaced in November, 2020 and the bill is also due as per consumption of electricity and smart meter reading is 0434 ( i.e. 06.11.2020 to 18.01.2021. The bill dated 10.11.2020 of Rs.78790/- of total reading 5465 and other outstanding dues from March 2018 and the same is rightly issued and the total amount is due till today. All the bills of the consumer are issued as per consumption of the meter reading from November, 2019 to bill dated 10.11.2020. It is further pleaded that when the complainant visited the office of OP then OP was shown the complainant to entire account and audit report and was advised to deposit the entire amount because same is regarding the actual consumption of electricity but she did not bother for same and filed this false and baseless complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 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, copies of bills dated 11.02.2018, 14.08.2018, 17.09.2020 and 15.05.2020 Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 27.10.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Aditi Rana SDO UHBVN Ex.OP1/A, copy of electricity bill dated 28.03.2022 Ex.OP1, copy of detail of bill and payment Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 04.11.2022 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 the complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is paying the electricity charges regularly. The sanctioned load of the meter is 1.0 KW only. In the month of January,2019 the meter installed in the premises of complainant was burnt and the meter was changed in the month of August, 2019 and in the meantime the OP send bills to the complainant on average basis which was duly paid by her. After replacement of meter, no bill was sent to the complainant, complainant requested to OP several times to issue the bill but OP failed to do so. Complainant received electricity bill dated 17.09.2020 from the OP to the tune of Rs.75685/-, which was very huge. After receiving the bill complainant visited the office of OP to correct the electricity bill but the electricity bill of the complainant has not been corrected after repeated requests. He further argued that complainant is ready to pay the bill as per actual consumption. He further argued that complainant is old aged and physically handicapped widow lady and has been using only one bulb and one fan with said connection and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel of OP while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that amount in question relates to actual consumption of electricity consumed by the complainant and no excess or extra amount is being charged from the complainant. Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.7000/- on 27.02.2018 and after that she is not paying the electricity bill. The bill is due from March, 2018 till date. The bill dated 10.11.2020 of Rs.78790/- of total reading 5465 and other outstanding dues from March 2018 and the same is rightly issued and the total amount is due till today. All the bills of the consumer are issued as per actual consumption and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

10.           Admittedly, complainant is consumer of OP. The old meter of the complainant was burnt and new meter was installed by the OP in August, 2019. The complainant has challenged the bill dated 10.11.2020 on the ground that she is paying the electricity charges regularly as per consumption.

11.           As per the version of the OP, the account of the complainant was checked by the audit party of the OP and found that bill is due as per consumption of electricity and meter reading was 5465 i.e. 19.07.2019 to 06.11.2020 when the smart meter was replaced in November, 2020. The amount of Rs.78790/- be made after due verification by the audit department.

12.           It has been proved on record that disputed amount is Rs.78790/- which has been shown in the bill Annexure-2 dated 10.11.2020 for the period of 19.07.2019 to 06.11.2020 but OP has not placed on record any documentary evidence to prove its case and also failed to convince this Commission that on what basis this bill has been issued by the OP to the complainant.

13.            Admittedly, the sanctioned load of connection in question is only 1.00 KW and consumption of said connection was used by only the complainant and no other person is residing with her. It is not possible to consume huge electricity by a single person whereover the connection is only 1.00 KW.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the OP had issued the bill dated 10.11.2020 on the basis of presumption and assumption and not as per the actual consumption. Thus the demand of the OP on the basis of higher units shown in the bill dated 10.11.2020 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

14.            Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.7000/- on 27.02.2018 and after that she is not paying the electricity bill. The bill is due from March, 2018 till date. Hence, OP can charge the consumption charges after taking average of meter reading of succeeding six months from March, 2018 and issued a fresh bill and complainant is bound to pay the same alongwith subsequent bills.

15.           In view of the above observation, the present complaint is disposed off accordingly. No order as to costs. 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:13.01.2023                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

  Member                   Member