Haryana

Karnal

CC/689/2021

Rakesh Batra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sanjiv Kamboj

08 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No.689 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.10.12.2021

                                                        Date of Decision 08.08.2024

 

Rakesh Batra aged about 54 years son of Shri Chuni Lal Batra, resident of house no.51, Dayal Singh Colony, Karnal. Aadhar no.9867 8582 2076.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

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

 

                                                              …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

            

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

                   Shri Amit Kumar Kamboj, counsel for the OP.

 

                     (Sarvjeet Kaur, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the 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 having domestic electricity connection bearing no.338120000 and since the day of installation of the said connection, complainant is paying the electricity charges regularly. In the month of August 2020, the meter installed in the house of the complainant became defective and that was replaced by the OP on 14.01.2021. The complainant immediately made complaint to the OP for the replacement of his meter but same was not replaced for a long time. However, during this period the OP went on sending bills as per the average basis which were duly paid by the complainant. After replacement of the meter, OP started sending the bills as per the actual consumption shown by the new meter and that were duly paid by him. Very surprisingly, complainant received a bill dated 26.10.2021 for an amount of Rs.3,14,193/- in which the units consumed is shown as 2135.36. In the said bill an amount of Rs.2,89,976/- has been shown as sundry charges/allowances i.e. previously balance but the fact is that there is no previously balance or any kind of outstanding amount towards the complainant. The addition of the amount of Rs.2,89,976/- in the bill of the complainant is quite illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the complainant. On receipt of said bill, complainant contacted the OP and asked for reason of charging the amount of Rs.2,89,976/- then the OP stated that there is previously pending bills of 108405.3 units and then complainant asked the OP that when he has been regularly paying bills as per bills send to him, hence how it can be said that said bill is due towards him. The complainant asked the OP to provide the detail of the period of said units but the OP stated that they are having no such detail with them. The complainant requested the OP to accept the current energy charges and to rectify the mistake in the bill but OP flatly refused to do and threatened that if the complainant will not deposit the entire amount of the bill then his electricity connection will be disconnected. Due to this act and conduct of the OP, 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 OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP 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 the complainant. The bill in question has been rightly and legally issued to the complainant.  It is denied that complainant has been regularly paying the billed amount. Rather the fact is that he used to pay the bills in part payments. It is further pleaded that the old meter installed in the house of the complainant became defective and same was replaced in January, 2021 vide LL-1 no.320/8005. The old meter was packed for its testing in the M&T Lab. as the meter reading was not visible. A notice bearing no.spl-15 dated 09.03.2021 was sent to the consumer. Meter was tested in the M&T Lab and as per the report no.ch-2313/MT-30 dated 10.03.2021, the meter was revived through Zig load R-108405-03KWH and charged Rs.28,98,976/- for 53508 units for 889 days and that amount was charged in the bill dated 26.10.2021 hence the bill was rightly issued to the complainant and remaining amount is regarding the current energy charges. The said bill issued to the complainant is legal and valid and the complainant is legally bound to pay the same. It is further pleaded that when complainant visited the office of OP to know about the bills detail and then the entire detail was given to him and he was advised to deposit the said amount but he did not bothered for the same, rather filed this false and baseless complaint. It is pertinent to mention here that OP has been adopting due and legal procedure for the recovery of the amount in question. 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.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of electricity bills dated 12.11.2021 Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 09.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vinay Kumar Ex.OP1/A, copy of LL1 dated 14.01.2021 Ex.OP2, copy of checking report Ex.OP3, cop of electricity bills Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 07.12.2023 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. In the month of August 2020, the meter installed in the house of the complainant became defective and was replaced by the OP on 14.01.2021. During this period, OP sent the electricity bills on average basis, which were duly paid by the complainant. Complainant received a bill dated 26.10.2021 for an amount of Rs.314193/-, which was not as per the actual consumption. On receipt of said bill, complainant visited the office of OP to correct the bill but OP 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 OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant was himself on fault in making payment of the electricity bills. The old meter installed in the house of the complainant became defective and same was replaced in January, 2021.  Meter was tested in the M&T Lab and as per the report dated 10.03.2021, the meter was revived through Zig load and charged Rs.2,89,976/-, vide bill dated 12.11.2021, 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.

11.           Complainant has alleged that he is paying the electricity charges regularly. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but he has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. There is no evidence on file to ascertain that complainant is paying the electricity bills regularly.  Rather, OP has placed on file, electricity bills dated 02.03.2020, 20.05.2020, 29.06.2020, 19.08.2020, 26.10.2020, 31.12.2020, 01.03.2021, 29.04.2021, 28.06.2021, 23.08.2021, 12.11.2021 and 27.12.2021  from March, 2020 to December, 2021. On perusal of the said bills, it has been proved on record that, OP has issued the bills regularly but complainant has not cleared the said bills. The sanctioned load is 12.00 KW and nothing was paid by the complainant till December, 2021. As per the order dated 21.12.2021 of the Commission, complainant has made payment 25% of the disputed amount i.e. Rs.2,89,976/- and thereafter nothing was paid by the complainant.  Hence, complainant is himself on fault for not making the payment of outstanding electricity bills.

12.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:08.08.2024                                                             

                                                              President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                              Member