Haryana

Ambala

CC/164/2013

HARDIAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUPERINTENDENT ENGG. - Opp.Party(s)

R.D DHIMAN

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

        Complaint Case No. :    164 of 2013

                    Date of Institution    :    02.07.2013

                    Date of Decision      :    18.07.2016

 

Hardial Singh son of Lachhman Singh R/o village Sounda, Tehsil and District Ambala.   

       ……Complainant.

                                                                                 Versus

1.         Superintending Engg. Operation Circle, UHBVNL, Ambala City.

2.         X.EN. Operation Division, UHBVNL, Opposite Haryana Roadways Workshop, Ambala City.

3.         Sub Divisional Officer ‘Operation’ Sub Division, East, UHBVNL, Ambala City.

……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. R.D. Dhiman, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Sarvjeet Singh, Adv. counsel for Ops.

ORDER.

                        Complainant has filed the present complaint contending therein that   a domestic electricity connection bearing account no.DN-13-1212-H (old no.D7-2343) is installed at his house where a team of YMPL carried out checking and reported that the meter installed at the house of complainant as ‘slow running’. So, complainant submitted an application for checking of the meter from laboratory and deposited a sum of Rs.100/- vide receipt no.63/056544 dated 13.08.2012 whereupon the old meter was removed and sent to the laboratory for checking the accuracy but no report was given to the complainant rather Ops sent a bill for the month of August 2012 showing excess amount of Rs.53810/- under the head  sundry charges and thus complainant moved an application for correction in the bill but the Ops did not make any correction rather issued a bill on 02.10.2012 to the tune of Rs.55423.53paise under the head sundry charges  but the same was not calculated on the basis of new meter consumption. Complainant has further submitted that he is paying electricity bills regularly without any delay and he approached several times to OP No.3 for correction of the bill  but he remained adamant to  charge the amount levied under sundry charges. So, complainant got served a legal notice dated 02.02.2013 upon the OPs which was duly received by them but they never tried to redress the grievance of the complainant.  It has been further contended that  letters bearing memo No.CH-8/GC-40 dated 11.03.2013 & CH-14/GC-40 dated 19.03.2013 of OP was received by counsel of the complainant whereby the  Executive Engineer (Op. Divn.) has directed the OP No.3 to give reply to the legal notice of complainant  but OP No.3 did not bother  to submit reply or comply with the instructions rather issued a bill dated 10.06.2013 for an amount of Rs.39750/- showing excess amount of Rs.62526/- under the head arrears minus Rs.24033/- under the head sundry charges. As such, the complainant  challenged the electricity Bills No.02434 dated 03.08.2012 and 02540 dated 10.06.2013 showing excess amount by contending that the act & conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service as well as negligence on their part and prayed for acceptance of complaint by issuing a direction  to Ops to recalculate the actual amount on the basis of consumption recorded by  new meter and the excess amount shown in the disputed bills may kindly be waived   and also to pay damages for harassment & litigation expenses etc.  

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint and concealment of true facts.  It has been urged that  the Ops had outsourced the job of checking the accuracy of the meters of its consumers to Yadav Measurement Private Limited i.e. YMPL and the meter installed against the electricity connection of complainant bearing account No.DN-13-1212-H was checked by the employees of YMPL in the presence of complainant in the month of August 2011 and the meter was found slow by -91.53% and the checking report was handed over to the complainant  at the spot itself and a copy thereof was also supplied to the Ops. Ops further urged that as a matter of practice UHBVNL removes the slow meters on the ground of suspected theft of electricity and get the genuineness of the seals and accuracy of such meters checked in M&T Lab. As the complainant had tampered the meter, so fearing action by UHBVNL, the complainant  playing a foul play deliberately burnt the meter before UHBVNL could remove his meter and get the same checked in M&T Lab. After burning the meter, complainant moved a request before SDO (Op.), Ambala City for replacing the burnt meter with new one vide Meter Change Order i.e. MCO dated 06.03.2012 and the burnt meter of complainant was changed with new meter. It has been further submitted that when the time to take action on the basis of report of YMPL came, the meter was no more available for checking in M&T Lab. Thereafter, the OP No.3 debited a sum of Rs.53785/- in the account of complainant vide sundry no.2 dated 08.06.2012 on the ground that the meter was slow.  The above amount was debited in the account of the complainant by working out what the complainant would have actually paid to the department for one year starting from February 2011 to April 2012 when the meter of the complainant was not slow. Thereafter vide sundry no.3 dated 22.04.2013, a sum of Rs.24058/- was credited in the account of complainant as the complainant was charged only for six months in place of twelve months/one year as charged earlier.  So, after the above adjustment the complainant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.36628/- to the Ops on account of arrears with regard to running of meter slow.  Rest of the paras of complaint was denied  & dismissal of complaint was sought.

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C1 to C-9 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Ops  tendered affidavit of Sh. Yash Pal Rana, SDO as Anenxure RX alongwith documents as Annexure R-1  to R-4 and closed evidence on behalf of OP-Nigam.  

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very minutely.  The main grievance of the complainant is that his electricity meter was running slow as told by YMPL and thus he moved an application to OPs on 13.08.2012 regarding checking of the meter. As per complainant, the meter was removed and sent to laboratory but no report regarding functioning of the meter was provided to the complainant rather a huge amount of Rs.53810/- was levied in the bill of the complainant in August 2012 and the meter & lab report has not been produced by the Ops before the Forum despite directions issued by the Hon’ble Forum.  

                        On the other hand, counsel for Ops refuted the arguments advanced by counsel for complainant and argued that on  checking of the meter by YMPL it was found slow  by -91.53% and on the basis of the report of lab, the bills in question were sent to the complainant. However, it has been  admitted that the meter in question and the report thereof qua checking of the meter is not available in their record.

5.                     At the very outset, it  is admitted fact on record that on 13.08.2012, complainant moved an application (Annexure C-4) for checking of the meter in question and deposited a fee of Rs.100/- on dated 13.08.2012 with the OPs vide receipt No.63/056544 (Annexure C-3)  whereupon the old meter was removed by installing new meter  and sent to M&T Lab for testing of accuracy but the meter was not tested and no any intimation was given to the complainant in this regard rather an amount of Rs.53810/- was levied on the basis of alleged YMPL report to which complainant protested before higher authorities whereupon a sum of Rs.24033/- minused out of Rs.62526/- levied  under the head of sundry charges in the bill dated 10.06.2013 and  thus a demand of Rs.39750/- was  made from the complainant in the bill dated 10.06.2013 (Annexure C-1) to which complainant challenged  before the Forum by filing the present complaint wherein a recovery of disputed amount of Rs.39750/- was stayed subject to deposit of 40% i.e. 15900/- by the complainant with OP vide  order dated 15.07.2013. So, the complainant moved an application dated 21.08.2013 before the Forum for issuance of direction to OPs to produce the  report in question alongwith meter  removed from the premises of complainant having Account No.DN-13-1212 but OP neither filed reply to the said application nor produced the same, as such vide order dated 08.12.2015, the Ops were directed to produce the lab report alongwith alleged meter before the Forum but the Ops after availing several opportunities failed to produce the same  and thus vide order dated 12.04.2016 passed by the Forum, an adverse inference that the Ops are not having any lab report and disputed meter in their possession was drawn against them. Further the act & conduct of the OP also  remained deficient during the pendency of the case as they disconnected the electricity supply to the premises of complainant  inspite of the stay granted by the Forum subject to deposit of 40% of the disputed amount and after issuance of notice by the Forum, it was restored by the Ops whereas on the other hand, in compliance of order dated 15.07.2013 passed by  the Forum, complainant deposited an amount of Rs.15,900/- on dated 20.08.2013 vide receipt Annexure C-10, which shows that the intention of complainant is very clear to deposit the actual bill amount and he does not want to be a willful defaulter of the OP department whereas OP failed to comply with the orders of the Forum in its letter & spirit.  Further from perusal of document-‘suspected theft of energy (Annexure C-5) issued by the OP’, it reveals that  there is a report “After YMPL checking, meter got burnt & same replaced vide MCO No.57/107 dated 21.04.2012. Hence, the meter cannot be checked from M&T Lab & not also issued LL-1.  But this office has overhauled the consumer account from 2/11 to 8/11. And a sum of Rs.53785/- were charged. So approval may please be accorded to carry  the bill on the basis of new meter base consumption”.  Meaning thereby that the meter was not in a position to be checked by the M&T Lab on 13.08.2012 when the OP got deposited fee from the complainant for checking of the meter vide receipt no.63/056544 (Annexure C-3) which is admittedly a deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.

                        So, in view of the facts referred above, we are of confirmed view that the OPs have issued some inflated bills to the complainant during the disputed period and as such we have no hesitation in holding that Ops are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant as well as have adopted unfair trade practice.  Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

1. Not to charge the amount of Rs.39,750/- from the complainant as demanded in the bill No.02540 dated 10.06.2013 (Annexure C-1) and adjust a sum of Rs.15,900/- in the account of complainant which he deposited as 40% of the disputed amount of Rs.39750/- vide receipt dated 20.08.2013 (Annexure C-10) in compliance   of order dated 15.07.2013 passed by the Forum.

 

2. Further to overhaul the account of the complainant w.e.f 02/11 to 08/11 on the basis of average consumption of corresponding months  of the previous year without charging  any surcharge thereupon and the amounts deposited by the complainant during  the disputed period,  if any besides Rs.15,900/- be also adjusted against the electricity  connection of complainant.

 

3. Also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation charges  as well as compensation for harassment & mental agony.

 

                                    The aforesaid directions must be complied with by the Ops within 30 days from the communication of this order otherwise the complainant shall be entitled to get the same enforced under due provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED:18.07.2016                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                 (A.K. SARDANA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

                                                                                                             Sd/-

        (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)  

                                                                                                              MEMBER