Haryana

StateCommission

A/390/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

02 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.390 of  2015

Date of the Institution: 29.04.2015

Date of Decision: 02.06.2016

 

1. UHBVN Kaithal through its SDO (OP) No.11, Kaithal,Tehsil and District Kaithal.
2. XEN, UHBVN, Kaithal.
3. Chairman, UHBVN, Kaithal.

                                                                   .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Suresh Kumar S/o Ram Singh, R/o Kusubpur Road, Kaithal Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.B.D.Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants.

                    Mr.Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the respondent.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It alleged by the complainant  that he obtained electric connection No.Di-1316 to run ‘Atta Chaki’ (flour mill). He used to consume 1000 to 1800 units per month and bill of Rs.6000/- to 12000/- used to come. He was making payments regularly. In the month of May, June 2013, his meter developed some technical default and was running at a high speed.  It had shown the consumption of 4153 units and opposite parties (O.Ps.) sent bill No.45 dated 11.07.2013 for Rs.29,589/-. This bill was pertaining to the period when the meter was running fast.  He moved an application before O.Ps. to change the bill and the amount be got deposited keeping in view the previous bills.  A check meter was installed on 29.07.2013 and reading was noted down up-to 27.08.2013.  During this time 1571 units were consumed.  He was asked to deposit Rs.29,589/- and told that excess amount would be adjusted.  Despite that a wrong and illegal bill No.45 dated 10.08.2013 was issued for Rs.39544 and the excess amount deposited by him about bill NO.45 was not adjusted. They further issued bill on 10.10.2013 for Rs.1,18,257/-.  He again went to O.P.No.1 to correct the bill  as per check meter, but, to no use.  O.ps. be directed not to disconnect supply and  charge the disputed amount.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that he is having sanctioned load of 19.730 KW vide electricity connection No.Di 1316 commercial.  Bill of Rs.29589/- was issued to the complainant in the month of January 2013 wherein old reading was shown as 50496 and new reading was 54649.  In this way he consumed 4153 units.  The bill was issued as per actual consumption.  Thereafter bill was issued in the month of August 2013  for Rs.39,554/-, wherein old reading was shown as 54649 and new reading was shown as 59947.  In this way he consumed 5298 units. A check meter was installed on 29.07.2013 for checking accuracy of the meter already installed.   Check meter had shown consumed units as 1569 whereas old meter had shown as 3642.  As per check meter the bill of the complainant was overhauled as per details given below:-

                                                “Already charged

Period        New Reading     Old reading         Units consumer

8/13           59947                  54649                  5296

7/13           54649                  50496                  4153

                   Total                                                 9449 units

To be charged

3692x100=235%

1569

 

Chargeable units =9449x100=2820

                                     335

Adjustable amount

 

Different=9449-2820=6629 units (adjustable)

 

Adjustable amount for 6629 units=52395/-“

After replacement of meter consumption was shown in Ex.R-1.  As per M&T lab report terminal plug of meter was found burnt and that is why accuracy could not be checked.  Objections about maintainability of complaint, accruing cause of action, deficiency in service, locus standi, etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 06.04.2015 and ordered as under:-

“Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to consider the average units of check meter dt. 27.08.2013 and overhaul the account of complainant accordingly.  The excess amount of bill deposited by the complainant, if any, be adjusted in the account of complainant.  The O.ps. are also burdened to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the opposite parties-appellants have preferred this appeal. 

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that  the complainant obtained the Di connection of 19.8 KW which is for commercial purpose.  It is no where alleged in the complaint that the connection was obtained for earning livelihood by consumer.  As the dispute pertains to commercial transanction, so the complaint is not maintainable before this forum and be dismissed.           It is also argued by learned counsel for the complainant that necessary correction have already been made in the bills, as mentioned above. So there is no necessity to make further adjustment.

7.      As per these arguments impugned order dated 06.04.2015 cannot be disturbed. O.ps. did not allege specifically in the reply that this connection was obtained for commercial purpose and that is why the complaint was not maintainable.  It was the bounden duty of the O.Ps. to raise specific plea to this effect.  More so, O.Ps. filed an application on 05.02.2014 before District forum to dismiss the complaint as the connection was released for commercial purpose. In reply of that application it was specifically alleged by the complainant that connection was obtained for earning livelihood by means of self-employment.   He also tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/B wherein it was specifically alleged that this connection was obtained at his house exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood.  O.ps. did not file any affidavit alleging that the complainant is not using this connection for earning livelihood.  Had the O.ps. filed any affidavit to this effect  then it could have been a different matter.  He is running small ‘Atta chaki’ in his house which can be considered as run for earning livelihood.  O.Ps. have not proved that he was using this connection for other purposes also.  Had they proved this fact then they could have alleged that it was being used for commercial purpose. 

8.      Further, it is admitted by O.Ps. that there was difference in the consumption of units as per check meter, as mentioned above.  Learned District Forum has directed to re-assess the amount of disputed period as per check meter.  After replacement of meter there is no question of re-assessing the consumption.  Order passed by learned District forum is well reasoned, based on law and facts. There is no ground to disturb the same. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.1100/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

June 02nd, 2016

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.