Haryana

Ambala

CC/394/2016

Jatinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The xen UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

G.S. Bawa

21 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

       Complaint Case No. :    394 of 2016

                   Date of Institution    :    21.10.2016.

                   Date of Decision      :     21.02.2018

 

Jatinder Kaur aged about 50 years wife of Shri Gurvinder Singh, resident of House No.29, New Ram Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

……Complainant.

Versus

 

1.The XEN,Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Operation Division No.1, Ambala Cantt.

2.The Sub Divisional Officer, UHBVN, Operation, Sub-Division No.2, Near Quality Ambala Cantt.

……Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:        SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                        MS.ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

                       

Present:          Sh. G.S.Bawa, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv. counsel for Ops.

 

ORDER

 

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that complainant  is using electricity through domestic electricity connection bearing account no.9572700000 (Old Account No.2111501UHMN103692 and is paying the electricity bills regularly. It has been averred that the meter of the complainant started mal-functioning and it started jumping by way of four times per unit, therefore, complainant moved an application dated 19.08.2016 to OP No.2 for installing check meter parallel to the said meter which was installed outside the house at electricity pole and after checking it was revealed that reading of the meter was 25808 and seals were intact and it working was shown as dead stop.  The complainant noticed that said meter was giving further reading and he gave another application dated 22.08.2014 for rechecking the meter. The official of the Nigam checked the meter and found reading as 26184.9 and dipper was also not working. Thereafter on another application the meter was replaced through MCO. The complainant was asked to pay the bill of Rs.27,690/-, Rs.43,448/- and Rs.18,568/- for the period from May, June, July and September, 2014 respectively. After replacing the meter the complainant requested the OPs to adjust the excess deposited amount of Rs.80,000/-  after clearing the further three bills of the average unit of 500 or less. The OP had also assured that the amount would be adjusted in the next coming year of the respective months. The complainant gave many applications besides legal notice dated 19.04.2016 but no satisfactory reply was given. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C14.

 2.                    Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed joint reply to the complaint wherein several preliminary objections such as estoppal, cause of action, maintainability and locus standi etc. were taken. The complainant had moved an application dated 22.08.2014 complaining about mal-functioning and fast running as well as for installing of check meter, therefore, meter was replaced with new one and the bill was raised as per consumption of the electricity by the complainant. There was no excess charging as bill for the period from 06/2014 to 10/2014 was raised on AMR. The complainant had given application dated 29.06.2015 and notice just to make the complaint within limitation. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. The OPs have tendered affidavits Annexure RA, Annexure RB and documents Annexure R1 & Annexure R2. 

3.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully.

4.                     The complainant had moved an application dated 19.08.2014 (Annexure C1) to change the meter and on the back of this application the working of the meter has been shown as dead stop and the meter in question was replaced on 27.08.2014. At the time of replacement the meter had recorded reading 29639 in the old meter vide MCO no.109 dated 27.08.2014 (Annexure C2). Perusal of Annexure C2 reveals that the meter had recorded 26184 units on 25.08.2014 as reported by the official of the Nigam. It took 8 days in replacing the meter of the complainant as the application for the same was moved on 19.08.2014 and meter was replaced on 27.08.2014 but it is strange that the meter had recorded 4831 units in 8 days from 25808 to 29639 despite the fact that the meter was dead stop as per the report made in MCO Annexure C3.  These documents are enough to show that the old meter took jump between the period from 15.05.2014 to 15.07.2014 (Annexure C4) as in this bill the consumed units has been shown as 3666, from 15.07.2014 to 15.09.2014 (Annexure C5) as in this bill consumed units have been shown as 5863 and from 15.09.2014 to 05.10.2014 (Annexure C6) as in this bill for consumed units 2144 has been shown. The Nigam had sent bill for the units recorded by replaced meter from 05.10.2014 to 15.11.2014 for a period of 41 by showing the consumed units as from 1 to 355 (recorded by new meter).   From the documents available on the case file it is clear that the new meter had started recording accurate units as it had recorded 385 units for the period from 18.11.2014 to 15.01.2015 (Annexure C7), 451 units  for the period from 15.01.2015 to 15.03.2015 (Annexure C8) and 357 units for the period from 15.03.2015 to 15.05.2015 (Annexure C9).

5.                                 After perusal of the record placed on the case file it is clear that the old meter took jump as it had shown huge consumption of units and even the officials of the Nigam in their report made on the back of the application Annexure C1 as well as in MCO Annexure C3 have shown the meter as dead stop, therefore, it is strange that the Nigam kept on sending the bills for excessive units without explaining the same for the reasons best known to them.  It was for the Ops to redress the grievance of the complainant as soon as possible without causing any harassment to the customer but they kept on sending the bills for huge consumption and even in MCO order Annexure R1 the reason for change the meter has been shown due to its defectiveness.  Another strange factor which this Forum has noticed that the Nigam has not got the meter tested from M&T lab to show that the meter was actually defective or not. The electricity department is a government institute but it appears that the OPs have taken the matter in a casual manner without taking-care the interest of the consumer and such like behavior from government institute is not acceptable.

6.                                 Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances it is clear that the complainant has proved his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence and the Ops are found deficient in providing services to her.  Hence, we allow the present complaint and declare the electricity bills for the period from 15.05.2014 to 05.10.2014 are hereby quashed qua the units recorded by old meter. In the interest of justice the OPs are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant for the period from 15.5.2014 to 05.10.2014 on the basis of consumption recorded by new installed meter for the period from 15.05.2015 to 05.10.2015. The amount deposited by the complainant, if any, be adjusted in the account of the complainant. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED ON: 21.02.2018                                              

                                                                             (D.N.ARORA) 

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

(ANAMIKA GUPTA)          (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)           

     MEMBER                         MEMBER