Haryana

Karnal

CC/523/2020

Smt. Paramjeet - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sanjiv Sharma

05 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 523 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.23.11.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:05.06.2023

 

Smt. Paramjeet wife of Shri Ravinder Saini, resident of house no.427/2, Saini Colony, Model Town, Karnal, age 53 years. Aadhar card no.4228 6960 5478.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Sub Divisional Office (OP), UHBVN, Sub Division, L13, Sub Urban, Karnal.

 

2.     XEN, UHBVN, Sector-12, District Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

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

                    Shri Rajbir Sharma, counsel for the OPs

       

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of 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.4333120000 of DS category at house no.427/2, Saini Colony, Model Town, Karnal. Since the day of installation of meter, OPs sent the bill on average basis, 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 sent the bill on different average basis. In the month of October, 2020, OPS sent the bill of Rs.48166/-. After receiving the said bill, complainant approached the OPs and requested to get corrected the bill as well as electricity meter/reading, if any fault is there. It is further averred that prior to that bills the complainant consumption units 354 in April, 2019, 625 in June, 2019, 529 in August 2019, 600 in October 2019, 1550 in February 2020 and 1909 in June, 2020 but in the bill dated 21.10.2020 the OPs shown unit 8232 from 17.06.2020 to 13.10.2020.  The OPs are threatening the complainant to disconnect his electricity connection if he fails to deposit the abovesaid 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; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the bill in question has been sent to the complainant after overhauling the account of complainant and that amount is regarding the actual consumption electricity units and no extra amount has been charged from her and as such the complaint of the complainant is based upon the false and baseless facts. It is further pleaded that the old meter of the complainant account no.4333120000, meter was removed from the site on 31.10.2019 on R-40634 and installed new smart meter sr. no.IS0069694. Again older meter sr. no.IS0069694 was removed from site on 20.12.2019 on R-1258 due to meter status found faulty and installed new smart meter sr. no.GP6840695. The bills issued in the month 4/2019, 6/2019, 8/2019, 10/2019, 2/2020 (292 units of old meter +1258 units of new meter=1550 units for period 04.10.2019 to 07.02.2020), 6/2020 (366.44 units of old meter +1543 units of new meter=1909.44 units for period 07.02.2020 to 17.06.2020 on the basis of actual consumption to consumer. The bill issued to consumer for Rs.48166/- only in month 10/2020 for period 17.06.2020 to 13.10.2020, is totally correct as per units consumed by the complainant, the complainant is using highly consumed units in this summer period. There is no deficiency in service 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.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of electricity bill dated 21.10.2020 Ex.C2, copy of Aadhar card of complainant Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 10.03.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vinay Kumar SDO Ex.OW1/A, copy of filter measuring component ID Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP5, copy of electricity bills dated 21.10.2020, 07.12.2020, 17.06.2020, 06.12.2020 Ex.OP6 to Ex.OP9 and closed the evidence on 08.02.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of 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 since the day of installation of meter, OPs sent the bill on average basis and complainant is depositing the due charges regularly. In the month of October, 2020, OPs sent the bill of Rs.48166/-, which is very high. After receiving the said bill, complainant approached the OPs and requested to get corrected the bill but OPs did not do so and threatening the complainant to disconnect his electricity connection if he fails to deposit the abovesaid amount 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 issued to complainant for Rs.48166/- is totally correct as per units consumed by the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

10.           As per version of the complainant, in the month of October, 2020, the OPs sent huge amount of bill of Rs.48,166/-. Complainant visited the office of OPs so many times to get corrected the said bill but OPs did not pay any heed to her request.

11.           As per the version of the OP, electricity bill dated 21.10.2019 is for the period from 17.06.2020 to 13.10.202 i.e.118 days. The bill is raised as per “actual consumption” so the current  “consumption” cannot be compared with the previous bills with respect to days and season.

12.           The disputed bill is for the period from 17.06.2020 to 13.10.202 i.e. 118 days. Complainant has pleaded that prior to that bill, 354 units in April, 2019, 625 units in June, 2019, 529 units in August 2019, 600 units in October 2019, 1550 units in February 2020 and 1909 units in June, 2020 have been consumed only. Consumption of less units in the prior months does not mean that complainant would not consume the higher units as shown in disputed bill, specifically when the said bill is of period of peak summer season. Admittedly, on 20.12.2019 old meter was removed from the site and new smart meter was installed in the premises of the complainant. As per version of the OP, old meter was faulty one had been showing the reading in lower side that’s why the same was changed and present disputed bill is during the period of smart meter. The disputed bill is of peak season of summer and possibility of consuming the higher side units cannot be ruled out.   Thus, we are of the considered view that the disputed bill issued by the OPs is as per actual consumption.

13.           Hence, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:05.06.2023                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

  Member                   Member