Haryana

Karnal

CC/91/2018

Brij Bhushan Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Hanumant Singh

15 Apr 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 91 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt. 13.04.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 15.04.2019

 

Brij Bhushan Bhatia aged about 56 years son of Shri Gopal Dass Bhatia, resident of House no.316, Sector-08, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                                                         …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

Sub Divisional Office, Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sub Urban Sub Division, opp. HUDA office, Sector12, Karnal.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Hanumant Singh Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Amit Munjal Advocate for opposite party.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that the complainant is having Domestic Electricity Connection bearing account no.SD-35/1988 (2473220000) sanctioned load 5 KW (three phase) and is paying all electricity charges as per consumption of the meter, regularly without any delay till March, 2017. In the first week of June, 2017 the complainant when had not received next monthly electricity bill, then the complainant check about the bill from the website of the OP and very surprised to see that the OP has wrongly shown excess consumed units and further wrongly shown the electricity charges as Rs.1,00,706/-, which was required to be paid upto 19.06.2017.  Immediately, thereafter, complainant checked the meter and found that all the light of the meter were in “ON” condition, whereas normally only one or two lights were remained on “ON & blinking” condition. The complainant after seeing the position under suspect of defect in the aforesaid meter has clipped some photographs and make video of the said defective meter in his mobile and later on such data was transferred into a compact disc. Thereafter, on 7.6.2017 the complainant moved a representation before the OP with a prayer to arrange to check the meter. On 9.6.2017 the official of the OP came to the premises of the complainant and checked the meter and observed that the meter is running even after disconnection of supply and further make remarks “Band Karne Ke Bad Bhe Meter Chalta Rahta he, Inka check meter lagaya jaye.” After such remarks the complainant as per instruction of the OP deposited Rs.200/- in the office of OP on 12.06.2017. Thereafter, on 20.06.2017 the officials of the OP came to the premises of the complainant and removed the defective meter from the then existing place and installed the defective meter alongwith check meter at electric pole existing outside portion of the premises of the complainant. At the time of installation of check meter the consumed unit reading of meter in question was showing as 66110, whereas consumed unit reading in the newly installed check meter was showing as 6177. After inspecting both the meters it had been made clear that the earlier meter installed to the premises of the complainant is a defective meter, then the officials of the OP after about two months as per direction of OP removed the defective meter from premises of the complainant and since then the newly installed check meter was treated as main meter of the complainant. During the process of the checking the meter the OP issued bill dated 25.07.2017 amounting to Rs.1,59,195/-, bill dated 27.09.2017 amounting to Rs.1,65,705/-, bill dated 9.10.2017, amounting to Rs.2,60,820/- and after receipt of these bills the complainant on each and every times approached to the OP for correction of bills, then the OP at that time orally stated that there is no need to deposit these bills until and unless the calculation sheet would be not prepared by his own office. Thereafter, in the month of November, 2017 the complainant again received another bill dated 21.11.2017 amounting to Rs.1,55,503/- in which the OP adjusted an amount of Rs.1,15,475/- and after receiving the bill complainant again approached the OP for correction of bill, then the OP has shown the calculation sheet in which the difference between the reading of defective meter and check meter alleged to have been found about 26% (excess in the defective meter). At the time of delivering the calculation sheet OP starting pressure upon the complainant to deposit the entire amount of bill dated 21.11.2017 and also threaten to disconnect the electricity connection. Under compelling circumstances, complainant deposited Rs.25,000/- in the office of OP on 11.12.2017. After receipt of said amount OP sent another bill dated 25.01.2018 amounting to Rs.1,37,351/- and again started making pressure to make the payment whereas complainant again and again requested to correct the bill as well as calculation sheet but OP without hearing the version of complainant disconnect the supply to the premises of the complainant. Then under compelling circumstances, complainant deposited Rs.70,000/- with the OP to restore the electricity supply. After receipt of that amount OP again sent another bill amounting to Rs.73,684/-. Thereafter, complainant again requested the OP for correction of the bill but in vain. Then complainant deposited Rs.95,000/- to avoid the disconnection of the electricity supply. From the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that OP has charged excess amount from the complainant by way of preparing false and bogus calculation sheet without considering the previous consumed data. The electricity charges of disputed bills from the period May, 2017 to October 2017 does not maximum exceed Rs.40,000/- but the OP has already illegally received Rs.95,000/-from the complainant still showing more arrears/sundry charges/surcharge etc. to the tune of Rs.71,377/- in the account of the complainant in illegal manner and making undue pressure to deposit the same. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi; maintainability; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was found running fast and as such the account of the complainant was overhauled by the OP and rebate of an amount of Rs.1,15,475/- was given to the complainant and after giving said rebate an amount of Rs.1,55,503/- was found due and recoverable from the complainant for which the bill has been sent to the applicant rightly and legally. Hence 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.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C32 and closed the evidence on 10.12.2018.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajiv Dhillon Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R14 and closed the evidence on 5.4.2019.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant is that he is paying all electricity charges as per consumption of the meter regularly without any delay till March, 2017. In the first week of June, 2017 complainant check about the bill from the website of the OP and utter surprised to notice that the OP has wrongly shown excess consumed units and further wrongly shown the electricity charges as Rs.1,00,706/-. The complainant checked the meter and found that all the lights of the meter were in “ON” condition, whereas normally only one or two lights were remained on “On & Blinking” condition. The complainant moved the application to the OP, then concerned JE checked the meter, observed that the meter is running even after disconnection of supply and further make remarks “Band Karne Ke Bad Bhe Meter Chalta Rahta he, Inka check meter lagaya jaye.” OP installed the check meter and thereafter meter of the complainant was found defective one. OP failed to rectify the defective electricity bill of the complainant.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OP is that meter installed in the premises of the complainant was found running fast and as such the account of the complainant was overhauled by the OP and rebate of an amount of Rs.1,15,475/- was given to the complainant. After giving the said rebate an amount of Rs.1,55,503/- was found due and recoverable from the complainant for which the bill has been sent to the complainant. The complainant is totally irregular in making payment of the previous bills and current energy charges. The adjustment qua the difference of units between the check meter and original meter has already been made by the OP.

8.             Admittedly, the meter in question was found running fast. On the complaint of the complainant, OP installed the check meter. And after inspecting both the meters it had made clear that the meter in question was a defective one. The counsel for the complainant argued that defective meter and check meter should be checked at the place, where the defective meter was originally installed but the OP has not done checking process properly and further the OP has not taken into consideration the previous consumed data of the aforesaid electricity connection to the premises of the complainant during the period when the meter was working properly.

9.             During the course of argument the counsel of the complainant produced the instruction issued by the Company Secretary to Chief Auditor, UHBVN, Panchkula, vide memo no.3787/CS/UH/BOD (156-30) dated 5.6.2013, subject Printing of Revised Sales Manual and argued that the OP has failed to follow the procedure prescribed in the said letter. Checking the Accuracy of Energy meter specifically mentioned in instruction no.4.8 .The Parameters for Accuracy of Energy Meter mentioned in instruction no.4.9(3), Procedure to be followed when a Meter is challenged as mentioned in instruction no.4.10(2) and Procedure for issuing the bill during defective/dead stop/burnt mentioned in instruction no.4.12 but OP had not considered the instruction issued by the Company Secretary and wrongly issued the bill to the complainant during period of defective meter.

10.            We have gone through the above instruction issued by the Company Secretary in which all the procedures are mentioned by the Company Secretary qua the defective meter but OP did not follow the said instructions. OP failed to rebut the said instructions. Thus, we are of the considered view that the act of the OP is deficient in service.

11.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we dispose of the present complaint with the direction to the OP to follow the instruction issued by the Company Secretary and then issue the afresh bill of the disputed period and adjusted the amount paid by the complainant as per the above instruction. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:15.04.2019

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member