Haryana

Panchkula

cc/158/2013

GAIN CHAND GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

complainant in person

28 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                           Complaint No.:   158 of 2013

                                                           Date of Instt.:      25.10.2013

                                                           Date of Decision:.         28.03.2016

 

Gian Chand Garg s/o Late Sh.Atma Ram Garg, H.No.95-A, Sector-17, Panchkula (electricity account No.A21PC192330L of UHBVNL).

 

                                                                             ….Complainant

                             Versus

 

 

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Chief Engineer.

 

2. Executive Engineer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Power Colony, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula.

 

3. Sub Divisional Officer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Power Colony, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula.

 

 

                                                                             …Opposite Parties.

 

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

BEFORE:             Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                             Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Sh.S.P.Attri, Member

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

                             Mr.Ashwani Chaudhary, Adv. for the OPs.

 

ORDER:

 

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

                            

1.                          The complainant has filed this complaint against the    opposite parties with the averments that he has been residing in house No.95-A, Sector 17, Panchkula since 2001 and using electricity against Account No.A21PC192330L and SD Code A-21. The average consumption of 2 monthly electricity remains between 2000 to 3000 units but 4-5 years ago the Ops had sent bill for more than Rs.36,000/-. The complainant had preferred a complaint but in the State Commission a settlement had taken place between the department and complainant. In the month of October, 2011 Bill No.1830 dated 09.10.2012 for an amount of Rs.32,795/- on average basis by showing the meter as defective was issued to the complainant. The Ops had issued bills from December 2011 to August 2012 wherein the consumption has been shown as 2647, 2332, 3217, 3151 and 2998.  The maximum consumption charges during the summer were 3217 units when in the defective meter the consumption had been shown as 5036. The Ops had also issued excessive bills for 2/2013, 4/2013, 6/2013 and 8/2013. On 25.10.2012 new meter No.PC19/2330 was installed but the same started giving excessive units of consumption. Thereafter the Ops had issued another bill no.1839 dated 07.12.2012 whereby the units have been shown as 2647 on average basis after showing the meter as defective. The complainant had brought the matter to the notice Ops No.2 & 3 and Ombudsman but the billing authority had not taken the average consumption for the previous bills.   The meter was changed on 20.10.2012 and the total consumption on the basis of new meter was 5027. The charging for 2750 units, 5036 units and 2647 units are wrong as he was forced to deposit Rs.50,000/- more than the actual consumption till August, 2013. The Ops had issued another bill of 6097 units for the period from 10.08.2013 to 10.10.2013 during rainy season and another bill for the units of 5175 and that bill also included the arrears for the previous two months. On the request of the complainant, the Ops had installed check meter on 16.09.2013 which was removed on 20.09.2013. The check meter was having electricity wires for the use of bulbs and not the power wires. The wires were burnt in the morning of 20.09.2013 and it went out of order at 3 a.m. The matter was brought in to the notice of Ops and then they removed the meter but it had jumped 100 units. On the request of complainant another check meter was installed on 24.09.2013 and same was removed on 14.10.2013  and it had shown consumption of 1257 units in 20 days whereas the old meter had shown the consumption of 1270 units with a difference of 13 units in 20 days and this difference would come to 39 units in 60 days.  The meter had to be checked from Government Laboratory before installation but the same has not been done.  The complainant requested the Ops many a time to redress his grievance but to no effect, therefore, he was having no alternate but to file the present complaint as due to the act and conduct of Ops he has suffered mental agony and harassment.  In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit and documents Ex.CA, Ex.C1 to Ex.C9.

 

2.                          On notice, the OPs appeared and filed their joint reply contesting the complaint of the complainant on various grounds. It has been submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable and the remedy if any available to the complainant is only under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 before the appropriate authority.  The complainant is estopped to file the present complaint and the matter in dispute cannot be decided in summarily manner. The complainant had been using the electricity connection bearing account No.PC-19/2330L and the meter was working perfectly since its installation. Initially the billing of the complainant was done according to average charges during 10/2012 which was not according to actual units and it was very much lower than later bills which have been issued according to actual total units consumed by the meter vide sundry No.427 dated 05.08.2013.  In the disputed bills it has been reflected that the earlier units were taken as per average basis. The complainant has to pay the electricity charges whatsoever due against him. The meter was got checked on 02.11.2012 by Op No.1 by installing the Acquechek meter but no abnormality was found.  Even the Op No.1 had requested the complainant if he is not satisfied with the checking of the meter then he can get the same tested from the M&T lab, Dhulkote, Ambala but he did not give his consent.  He was given many opportunities of being heard but in vain.  The account of the consumer was overhauled for the disputed period on the basis of average consumption of new meter for the next six months of its installation vide sundry No.429 dated 05.08.2013. The bills of the complainant are correct and had been sent as per the procedure of Nigam.  It has been denied that the new meter had given excessive or wrong readings rather the same was in order.  Regarding bill dated 07.12.2012 it has been submitted that the status of the meter could not be updated in the billing cycle after replacement of the new meter as such the status was shown as defective and the old readings was shown as the same as in the last bill.  Since the meter was defective as such the billing of the period when the meter was remained shown defective in the bills would be subject to the overhauling after the installation of new meter.  The bill dated 09.02.2013 has been issued as per actual consumption recorded by the meter. The billing after the installation of new meter was correct as per the consumption therefore, the complainant is liable to pay the same.  He has never been forced to pay Rs.50,000/-. The meter was properly installed and the allegation of jumping of the meter are irrevelant and devoid of any merit because he is not a technical expert.  If he is not satisfied with the report of check meter, then they are ready to get the new meter checked from the lab provided him to give undertaking qua bearing of the cost of the same. The check meter are used only after it has been checked and tested by the competent lab of the Nigam.  The grievance of the complainant has already been redressed by checking the accuracy of the new meter through the check meter therefore question of any deficiency in service on their part does not arise at all. Other pleas made by the complainant have been controverted and prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made.  The Ops have not tendered any evidence inspite of many opportunities including last opportunity on 12.06.2014. However, the evidence of Ops was closed by the order of the court.

 3.                         We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

4.                          For facilitating the adjudication about the validity or otherwise of the plea raised during the course of hearing by the complainant denying liability to pay the claim of surcharge claimed by the OPs, we would notice the fact which are available on the record itself.

5.                          At the motion hearing, this Forum recorded the plea of the complainant for the stay of disconnection on an offer to deposit 50% of the disputed amount. The plea for stay was initially granted till the next date of hearing and it came to be extended from time to time.

 6.                         It was thereafter on 13.11.2014 that the complainant made an offer to get the electricity meter installed at his premises in October, 2012, tested from M&T Lab, Dhulkot. It was further averred that the offer was being made in the light of the averments made in the course of Para No.17 of the Written Statement filed by the OPs. While averring that, however, the complainant had made it clear that in the light of the averment in Para No.17, he undertakes that all the arrears without surcharge will be deposited after the receipt of the report from Dhulkot. The plea made by the complainant for testing of the meter at Dhulkot was agreed upon by the OPs as well by endorsing no objection on the application itself meaning thereby that the Ops agreed upon the undertaking given by the complainant.

7.                          In the course of Para No.1 of the application, the complainant had made a precise averment that “the arrears without surcharge will be deposited after the receipt of the result from the Ambala lab”. That averment is recorded in the order dated 08.12.2014 to have been reiterated by the complainant. Although it is the uncontroverted position that the OPs never consented to that part of the averment (either in the course of application or the Interim Order dated 08.12.2014) with regard to the non-payment of surcharge, it is also a fact that the examination of the meter got inordinately delayed for reasons not attributable to the complainant. It is on record that the Dhulkot office informed the Forum that “the meter testing bench of this Lab is out of order since 09.03.2015” (vide letter dated 20.03.2015. The report was, ultimately, filed in this Forum vide communication dated 08.09.2015. There is, thus, no escape from the conclusion that the delay in the testing of the meter is, in any case, not attributable to the complainant.

 8.                         While it is to state the obvious that a judicial determination in matters pending before this Forum has to come about on the basis of pleadings which normally include an affidavit as also documentation in support of the factual averments made in the course of the affidavit, it is very pertinent to notice that while the averments made by the complainant are affidavit-supported and there also is documentation to buttress it, the evidence of the OPs was closed under the orders dated 12.06.2014 of this Forum. The OPs filed an application for additional evidence which too is being disposed of vide this order itself incompliance with the Interim Order dated 22.09.2014 which is not recorded to have been objected to by the parties herein. In the course of the application, the averment is that documentation “could not be tendered before the learned forum during the evidence of the applicant as the Counsel for the applicant was out of station at his native place during the summer vocations and on the date when the evidence of the applicant was closed and even the present case was not noted down for 12.6.2014 in his daily diary inadvertently”.

 9.                         The application would deserve outright rejection because it is not even supported by an affidavit of the Learned Counsel to whom the averments are relatable. No copy of lawyers diary has been produced to prove the averments. We find the application to be thoroughly misconceived and rejected.

10.                        On merits too, it may be recorded that the precise averment made by the complainant detailing the facts validating the grievance of incorrect billing for the relevant duration are duly supported by documentation including an affidavit; while the OPs did not even tender an affidavit of the signatory to the Written Statement.

 11.                       In the scheme of things envisioned under the Consumer Protection Act, the adjudication comes about on the basis of the affidavit/counter affidavit, as also the documentation filed by the parties to the complaint in support of their respective stances. The OPs, it may be recorded even at the cost of repetition, did not opt to tender any affidavit or documentation in order to prove the averments made in the course of the Written Statement or to rebut the averments made by the complainant.

12.                        We are, thus, clear in our mind that the complainant is not liable to pay the surcharge on the disputed amount keeping in view his undertaking and no objection of the Ops and further that the complainant has been able to prove the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 13.                       While allowing the complaint, we would order that: -

         a)       The OPs are not entitled to charge any amount of surcharge (Surcharge amount payable after due date) on the disputed bill No.1830 dated 09.10.2012 charged and in subsequent bills till the date of this order;

         b)      OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of services as also the mental agony and harassment caused to him; and

         c)       OPs shall further pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation  

14.                        The OPs shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to them comes about.

 15.                       A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint.

 

Announced

28.03.2016        S.P.ATTRI      ANITA KAPOOR   DHARAM PAL

                           MEMBER                   MEMBER            PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         ANITA KAPOOR

                                                          MEMBER