Haryana

Karnal

CC/548/2020

Des Raj Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Des Raj Goyal

24 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 548 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.02.12.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:24.11.2022

 

Des Raj Goyal son of Shri Rulia Ram Goyal, resident of house no.1503, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal, aged about 72 years. (Aadhar card no.4318 5775 6968). Mobile no.8685878763.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVNL Ltd. Sub Urban Sub Division, Karnal.

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

                    Shri Sunil Sharma, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is the consumer of OP and having electricity connection bearing no.91612000 which is a domestic connection and since the day of installation of the said connection, complainant paying the electricity charges regularly. OP issued a bill dated 07.09.2020 in which old reading has been shown as 2336 and new reading is shown as Zero but the bill has been issued for 1259.22 units for Rs.10010/-. The said bill is incorrect because in the said bill the old reading is mentioned as 2336 and new reading is not mentioned but the bill for consumption of 1259.22 units have been issued to the complainant. The complainant visited office of OP for rectifying the bill but OP asked to deposit the said amount and in the next bill the correct bill will be issued to the complainant, hence he deposited the same under protest. Thereafter, OP sent bill dated 06.11.2020 in which old reading is shown as 5274 and new reading is shown as 6973, consumed units are 1699.66 for which bill is Rs.12230/-. In the said bill an amount of Rs.34146/- are shown as previous arrears but the fact is that there were no arrears towards the complainant, which is evident from the previous bills. In this bill old reading is shown as 5274 but in the previous bills same reading nowhere exists and seems that billing department of their own has mentioned the said reading. On receipt of said bill, complainant contacted the OP and asked for reason of charging the amount to Rs.34146/- and to overhaul his account as reading shown in bill is incorrect but the OP has not given any  satisfactory reply and the 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 his connection will be disconnected. In this way there is deficiency in service 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; locus standi; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that bill in question is regarding the actual consumption of electricity and no excessive amount has been charged from the complainant and complainant is liable to pay the same. It is further pleaded that the meter installed in the premises of the complainant is a smart meter and it gives reading on the pattern of KVAH and KWH. The units shown 5274 is of KVAH but bill of that units has not been charged as the electricity connection of the complainant is of domestic nature and the bill is calculated on the pattern of KWH. It is further pleaded that the bill sent to the complainant is quite legal and valid and complainant is liable to pay the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of electricity bill dated 24.09.2020 Ex.C1, copy of electricity bill dated 23.11.2020 Ex.C2, copy of application for correction of bill Ex.C3, copy of payment acknowledgment dated 22.09.2020 Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 12.04.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vinay Kumar SDO Ex.OP1/A, copy of activity information Ex.OP2 and copies of electricity bills Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP11 and closed the evidence on 06.1.2022 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 complainant, while reiterating the contents mentioned in the complaint, has vehemently argued that the bill dated 06.11.2020 in which old reading is shown as 5274 and new reading is shown as 6973, consumed units are 1699.66 for which bill is Rs.12230/-. In the said bill an amount of Rs.34146/- are shown as previous arrears but the fact is that there were no arrears towards the complainant, which is evident from the previous bills. He further argued that OP had also issued a bill dated 07.09.2020 in which old reading has been shown as 2336 and new reading is shown as Zero but the bill has been issued for 1259.22 units for Rs.10010/-. The said bill is incorrect because in the said bill the old reading is mentioned as 2336 and new reading is not mentioned but the bill for consumption of 1259.22 units have been issued to the complainant. The complainant visited office of OP for rectifying the same but the OP did not do so and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the meter installed in the premises of the complainant is a smart meter and it gives reading on the pattern of KVAH and KWH. The units shown 5274 is of KVAH but bill of that units has not been charged as the electricity connection of the complainant is of domestic nature and the bill is calculated on the pattern of KWH. He further argued that the bill sent to the complainant is quite legal and valid and complainant is liable to pay the same and prayed for dismissal of the complainant.

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

10.           In the present complaint, disputed bill is only Ex.OP7 dated 07.09.2020 for the month of September, 2020 in which old and new reading has been shown as zero in unit column KVAH and old reading has been shown as 2336 and new reading has been shown as zero in KWH unit column but in the billed units column, consumed units have been shown as 1259.22. OPs have failed to explain the method to calculate the said units. It appears that said units have been shown in the said column only on the basis of presumption and assumption, which is totally arbitrary and unjustified. Thus, the bill Ex.OP7 dated 07.09.2020 does not appear to be as per the actual consumption.  Hence, the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service.

11.           As per the version of the complainant, he has deposited bill amount under protest. This fact has not been denied by the OP.

12.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to rectify the bill dated 07.09.2020 and charged the electricity bill as per the actual consumption and also adjust the disputed bill amount deposited by the complainant under protest. No order as to cost. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:24.11.2022

 

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                    Member                         Member