Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/766/2013

Sanju Jindal W/o Sameer Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

U.H.B.V.N - Opp.Party(s)

G.D.Gupta

17 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                                Complaint No. 766 of 2013.

                                                                                                Date of institution: 15.10.2013.

                                                                                                Date of decision: 17.03.2016

Sanju Jindal aged about 35 years wife of Sh. Sameer Jindal, Resident of House No. 2192, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            …Complainant.

 

                                    Versus

1. Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Urban, Sub Division, UHBVN. Ltd. Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.   
2. Managing Director, UHBVN Ltd. Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

                                                                                                               ...Respondents.  

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. G.D.Gupta, Advocate, counsel for complainant. 

              Sh.  Zile Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents.     

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sanju Jindal  has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (herein after referred as OPs) be directed to overhaul the electricity connection bearing account No. JU-21/6254P of the complainant and further to refund the amount of Rs. 3200/- on account of cost of meter alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.   

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is having an electricity connection bearing account No. JU-21/6254P at her residence which is installed outside the house on the electric pole. In the year 2012, the meter in question had gone out of order and the complainant immediately informed the OP No.1 but OP No.1 took Much time in replacing the same. During the period, till the new meter was replaced, OP No.1 had been issuing exuberantly high value bills, on average basis and assured the complainant that these would be adjustment after the replacement of the meter on the basis of actual consumption. After replacement of the meter, the OPs issued bill No. 6722 dated 29.01.2013 for the period of 28.10.2012 to 28.12.2012 for Rs. 5092/- which included Rs. 3200/- on account of cost of meter. As per circular No. U-80/2006 issued by OP No.2 circulated vide office memo No. CH-173-M-II/SE/C-II dated 1.12.2006, consumer is not responsible for the security and safety of the meter installed on the pole and in case of any damage to the meter installed on the pole, the UHBVNL will replace the same without charging any cost. So, the complainant lodged a protest with OP No.1 through her Advocate Sh. G.D.Gupta on 12.2.2013 (Annexure C-3) and paid the bills under protest. A legal notice dated 21.6.2013 (Annexure C-4) was also issued to the OPs but the OPs neither replied nor bothered to comply with the request of the complainant. Lastly prayed that OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 3200/- illegally charged from the complainant on account of cost of damaged meter and to refund excessive charge as during the period when the meter did not work, they had issued bills on average basis as per sanction load and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.   

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merit it has been stated that meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No. 43 dated 19.07.2012 effected on 31.07.2012, copy of MCO is Annexure R-1. It has been further stated that the cost of the meter has been rightly received by the OPs from the complainant as per sale circular No. U-29/2008 according to which it is provided in para No.22 sub clause (b),  that in case of damage of meter due to animal, lightening and due to other natural cause, no FIR shall be lodged and meter shall be replaced at the cost of Nigam. Thus, cost of meter amounting to Rs. 3200/- has been rightly received by the OPs from the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of electricity bill bearing No. 6722 dated 29.01.2013 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of sale circular No. U-80/2006 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of protest letter dated 12.2.2013 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of registered AD Legal notice dated 21.6.2013 as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of reply to the protest letter as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of reminder of legal notice dated 30.7.2013 as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of legal notice dated 21.09.2013 as Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs also tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Munish Sharma, SDO (OP) Sub Divn. UHBVNL, Jagadhri as Annexure RW/A and documents such as photo copy of MCO bearing No. 43 dated 19.7.2012 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of register as Annexure R-2 and Photo copy of Sale Circular No. U-29/2008 dated 26.8.2008 as Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties at length and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     The only grievances of the complainant is that the OPs are not legally entitled to recover the cost of meter Rs. 3200/- which has been recovered from the complainant by the OPs vide their Bill No. 6722 dated 29.01.2013 for the period from 28.10.2012 to 28.12.2012 amounting to Rs. 5092/- in which Rs. 3200/- has been added as cost of meter and draw our attention towards sale circular No. U-80/2006 issued by OP No.2 vide memo No. CH173/M-II/SE/C-II dated 01.12.2006 (Annexure C-2) wherein it has been clarified that consumer will not be responsible for security, safety of the meter installed on the poles and in case of damage of the meter installed on pole, the UHBVNL will replace the same without charging the cost provided that if the Nigam is able to prove to consumer that meter shifted outside the premises has burnt due to over loading then the cost may be charged from consumer, otherwise the Nigam may replace the burnt meter at its own costs.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs rebutted this argument referring the para No.21 & 22 of sale circular bearing No. U-29/2008 dated 26.8.2008 (Annexure R-3) wherein it has been mentioned that “ in case, the meter installed outside the premises is found tempered, the official conducting enquiry shall quote facts and figures which establish that meter has been tampered deliberately and consumer is beneficiary with this action, then the action shall be taken as per instructions of the Nigam and FIR shall be lodged under section 138 of Electricity Act,2003 against the consumer. The supply of the consumer shall be disconnected immediately and in para No.22 (b) it has been mentioned that in case of damage of meter due to animal, lightening and due to other natural cause, no FIR shall be lodged and the meter shall be replaced at the cost of Nigam.

9.                     After going through the circulars referred by both the parties, we are of the considered view that OPs have totally failed to prove that the meter of the complainant was damaged/ burnt due to overloading as no report of any lab technician has been filed by the OPs. Further it is also not the case of the OPs that the meter in question was tempered deliberately by the complainant and the consumer is beneficiary with this action as no enquiry report has been conducted by the officials/officer and filed as mentioned in para No.21 of sale Circular No.29/2008, even, in the MCO No. 43/1152 (Annexure R-1) no reason of burnt meter has been given by the J.E. or concerned lineman at the time of replacing the meter and in the absence of any cogent evidence, this Forum is not able to hold that the OPs were legally entitled to recover the cost of the meter from the complainant.

10.                   Now, second grievances of the complainant is that the meter of the complainant had gone out of order in the year 2012 and the OPs were sending the bills on average basis and till date account of the complainant has not been overhauled by the OPs after the replacement of meter vide MCO No 43 dated 19.7.2012 and the complainant is entitled to get the excess amount charged by the OPs on average basis.

11.                   We have perused the written statement filed by OPs but the OPs has totally failed on this issue and neither it has been mentioned in the written statement that whether the account of the complainant has been overhauled after the MCO bearing No. 43/1152 dated 19.7.2012 nor filed any documentary evidence vide which the account of the complainant has been overhauled on the basis of new meter vide MCO No. 43/1152 and in the absence of any evidence, we are of the opinion that the OPs have still not overhauled the account of the complainant and considerable time has been elapsed. So, we have no option except to direct the OPs to overhaul the account of the complainant bearing JU-21/6254P for the period in which the meter remained out of working and bills were issued on average basis i.e. from 28.12.2011 onwards till the date of MCO on the basis of reading of new meter for the next one year.

12                    In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that as the OPs failed to overhaul the account of the complainant and has illegally charged Rs. 3200/- as cost of meter from the complainant which constitute the deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, we have no option except to partly allow the complaint of complainant.

13                    Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs to overhaul the account of the complainant bearing No. JU21/6254P for the period in which the meter remained out of working and bills were issued on average basis i.e. from 28.12.2011 and onwards till the date of MCO on the basis of reading of new meter for the next one year. Further, OPs are directed to refund an amount of Rs. 3200/- which was charged on account of replacing the old meter with new meter alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of deposit till its actual realization and further to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.

Dated: 17.03.2016.

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

                                                 (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                  MEMBER