Haryana

Karnal

CC/315/2020

Narinder Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sanjiv Kamboj

10 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 315 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.24.08.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:10.03.2023

 

Narinder Pal Singh aged about 53 years son of Shri Sardari Lal, resident of ward no.7, plot no.11, Distance Area, near Golden Palace, Nilokheri District Karnal. Aadhar no.2436 Nilokheri, District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVN Ltd. Sub Division, Nilokheri, District Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Sanjeev Kamboj, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Amit Munjal, 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 the OP and is having D.S. Category electricity connection bearing account no.KD-37-1885-K. Complainant has been paying the electricity charges to the OP regularly. In the month of April 2019, the meter installed in the house of the complainant became defective and complainant then moved an application to the OP for the replacement of the meter. The complainant was assured that the same will be replaced very soon but the same was not replaced by the OP. However, the OP started sending the bills on average basis, which were duly paid by the complainant to the OP. In the meantime, complainant approached the OP several times and requested to replace his defective meter but to no effect. Suddenly, in the month of December 2019, the said meter jumped and started running very fast. On 31.12.2019, complainant moved an application to the OP for testing of his meter and replacing the same. Accordingly, on the request of the complainant, the OP replaced the meter, vide MCO dated 31.12.2019 and at the time of removing of said meter, the JE concerned reported the status of the meter “Defective” but the reading consumed is shown as 31686 which is totally incorrect and that has occurred due to jump of meter/or some defect in the meter. The complainant approached the field staff either to install a check meter in parallel to this meter or to get it tested from the M&T Lab, then the complainant was assured that said meter is being sealed by them and would be tested in the presence of complainant in the Lab. No notice was sent by the OP for attending the M&T Lab for testing of his meter but he was never called, rather he was surprised and shocked when he received a bill dated 09.02.2020 for an amount of Rs.205219/- in which an amount of Rs.201120/-has been shown as previous arrears. On receipt of said bill, complainant visited the office of OP and requested to show cause of adding such an huge amount in his bill. The official of the OP stated that the amount of difference of previous reading of meter from the date of defective and till date of removal of meter. The complainant objected the said act by saying that since his meter is defective since long and it has jumped and as such it was required to be tested from the lab but same has not been done and as such he is not liable to pay the same. The official of the OP stated that they will look into the matter again but nothing was done by the OP and started sending the bills by crediting interest and surcharge on that amount. Now, OP send a bill dated 07.08.2020 for Rs.2,33,372/- in which an amount of Rs.218119/- is shown as previous arrear, which is quite illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the complainant. On receipt of said illegal bill, complainant contacted the OP and requested for withdrawal of same and to overhaul the account of complainant by taking into consideration the previous consumption and the newly installed meter consumption but OP refused to do so and threatened to disconnect the electricity connection of complainant if he will not deposit the said amount. 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; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the meter reading of consumption was not visible hence bill of complainant was sent on average basis, however, complainant neither moved any application at that time to replace the meter nor approached to OP for the same. In the month of December, 2019 the said meter jumped and starts running very fast. Reading for bill of December month was taken through device as 31191 units. Only then complainant moved the application for replace the meter accordingly meter was got checked through device on 31.12.2019 and noted the reading as 31600 units which was become 31686 on 12.01.2020 at the time of removal the meter. It is further pleaded that the complainant has paid the bill upto the reading of 5880 units upto August, 2018 but when in December, 2019 the reading was taken through device it was 31191 and after deducting the said 5880 unit, the OP is entitled for charges of 25311 units. Complainant alleged that the meter was jumped but the meter of complainant was never jumped, rather it is the bill of actual consumption charges and complainant is liable to pay the same. Since the complainant has not the earlier bill issued to him hence the amount was shifted to another bill and interest and surcharged has also been charged from the complainant. The bill issued to the complainant is regarding the actual consumption of electricity and he is liable to pay the same. The meter installed in the premises of the applicant never jumped. The bill sent to the complainant is legal and valid and complainant is bound to pay the same. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice 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.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of electricity bills dated 09.02.2020 and 07.08.2020 Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, copy of application dated 31.12.2019 to OP regarding excess meter reading Ex.C3, copy of application dated 29.04.2020 to OP regarding correction of bill Ex.C4, copy of meter change order Ex.C5, copy of letter dated 09.07.2020 by DGP-cum-Director of Vigilance, HPUs, Panchkula to The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, UHBVNL, Panchkual regarding not to rectify the electricity bill of complainant Ex.C6, copy of electricity bill dated 08.02.2022 Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 15.02.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Parvinder Kaushal Ex.OP1/A, copy of report dated 14.08.2020 regarding wrong electricity bill Ex.OP1, copy of date regarding already charged Ex.OP2, copy of application dated 31.12.2019 to OP regarding excess meter reading Ex.OP3, copy of meter change order dated 31.12.2019 Ex.OP4, copy of Data Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on 21.10.2022 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 of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is having electricity connection. Since the day of installation of meter, complainant has been paying the electricity charges regularly. Complainant received a bill dated 09.02.2020 for an amount of Rs.205219/- and again received bill of Rs.2,23,372/-in which an amount of Rs.2,18,119/- is shown as previous arrear. Complainant also received a bill dated 08.02.2022 of Rs.2,65,238/-. The abovesaid bills issued by the OP are not as per actual consumption. Complainant many times requested to the OP to get corrected the bill but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the meter installed in the premises of the complainant never jumped. The bills sent to the complainant as per actual consumption and complainant is bound to pay the same. OP  had replaced the old meter with a new  meter on the application of the complainant, vide order dated 31.12.2019 and the reading of old meter was taken into account while sending the bills, as such the bill for the February 2020 was sent to the complainant for an amount of Rs.205219/-. Complainant himself defaulting for not paying the electricity bills and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

11.           OP has replaced the old meter with new meter on the application of complainant, vide order dated 31.12.2019 and reading of the old meter was taken into account while sending  the bill for the month of February, 2020 for an amount of Rs. 205219/-.

13.           As per version of the complainant, the meter had jumped and same was defective one. The onus to prove its version was relied upon the complainant. It is evident from the meter change order Ex.C1 dated 31.12.2019, meter was defective one. Said report has been prepared by J.E. of the OP. It is also evident from the applications Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, complainant approached to the OP with regard to defect in the meter. It is also evident from the letter Ex.C6 dated 09.07.2020, complainant has moved the application for correction of the disputed bill.

14.           In view of the above, it has been proved on file that electricity meter was defective one from the very beginning. Thus, the act of the OP while issuing the bill on the basis of defective meter amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

15.           Thus, in view of the above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to overhaul the account of complainant and  to issue the electricity bills according to the average of meter-reading of succeeding six months from the disputed period by receiving the consumption charges without imposing any surcharge and penalty. OP is also directed to issue the subsequent electricity bills as per the actual consumption and complainant is also bound to clear the same. It is made clear if any amount was already paid by the complainant from the disputed bill then it should be adjusted in the future bills.  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:10.03.2023                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

  Member                   Member