Haryana

Ambala

CC/107/2015

Gopal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashutosh Aggarwal

13 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                           Complaint No.:107 of 2015.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 21.04.2015.

                                                           Date of Decision: 13.10.2017.

 

Gopal Singh son of Sh.Kehar Singh aged ……..years r/o H.No.611, Durga Nagar, Ambala City.

 

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Sub Division- A32, East, Ambala City through Sub Divisional Officer.

2.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Operation Division, UHBVN, Ambala City through Executive Engineer.

                                                                             …Opposite Parties.

 

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

 

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

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                                                             MS.ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

Present:                Sh. Ashutosh Aggarwal, Adv. for the complainant.

                             Sh. Saravjeet Singh, Adv. for the opposite parties.

 

ORDER:

 

                             Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that complainant is having electricity connection bearing account No.DN12-2313P (Old account No.D-1357) and he has been making the payment of electricity bills regularly but the Ops had sent a bill for Rs.18428/- for the period from 15.05.2012 to 15.07.2012 in August wherein sundry charges have been shown as Rs.17252/-. The complainant requested the OPs to correct the bill by removing the illegal sundry charges but it was told that the penalty has been imposed upon the complainant for running the meter slow. The complainant challenged the same by moving an application dated 21.08.2012. he also purchased a new electricity meter and also paid Rs.190/- besides depositing the new meter alongwith its original bill with OPs but till January, 2013 the OPs did not install the meter. The single phase meter was removed from the premises of the complainant and sent to M&T lab for testing. New meter was installed vide checking report LL-1 and at the time of issuance of checking report connected load was 0.650 KW against sanctioned load of 2 KW.  Since September 2012 to January 2013 the OPs disconnected the electricity supply but kept on sending and charging electricity bills. The electricity bill for the period from 15.11.2012 to 15.01.2013 had shown the consumed unit as 41 as MIN. The complainant asked the OPs for the status of old electricity meter through RTI but it was intimated to him that the application was not received in the office. On dated 05.08.2013 the complainant was called at Dhulkot for checking of old meter and checking report was handedover. The checking report itself shows that the OPs did not apply scientific method to ascertain the sanctity of the meter as in the report it has been mentioned that the meter working already checked by M/s YMPL found 77.83 % slow. On 27.08.2013 the complainant received memo No.Ch-2/East-22 of ‘Suspected Theft’ and when the complainant asked about this illegal notice then it was intimated to him vide memo No.Ch-4/East-22, Dated 09.09.2013 that it is concluded that the consumer is not found guilty for theft of energy. The complainant requested the OPs to treat the said demand as illegal but the OPs forcibly recovered an amount of Rs.22282/- including the illegal penalty of Rs.17252/-. The complainant preferred an appeal before First Appellate Authority-cum-Superintending Engineer but it was ordered to approach Nigam for adjudication of the matter. Vide memo No.MTL/RTI/ 01/01/2014 dated 03.01.2014  it was intimated that meter Sr.No.11634544  Make L&T  Rating- 1x10-60 Amp bearing branch No.DKTS-10678, 11/2012 is Testing At site of Firm  not at M&T Lab UHBVN Dhulkot. The Ops have deliberately tried to make the complainant run from pillar to post despite the fact that he was not at fault. 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 C15.

2.                          On notice, OPs appeared and contested the complaint by filing their joint reply wherein it has been submitted that in August, 2012 demand of Rs.17221/- was raised for the first time on account of loss of revenue due to slowness of meter.  The electricity meter of the complainant was checked on behalf of UHBVN by Yadav Measurements Pvt. Ltd. being its services were outsourced by the Nigam for checking the meters of the consumers.  The employees of the YMPL after checking the meter found the meter slow by-77.83 %.  The loss of revenue was counted as Rs.17,221/-  and the said charges were debited in the account of the complainant. The slow meter was changed vide SJO No.19/981 dated 21.05.2012 which was effected on 31.01.2013. The meter was removed and packed in card board box in the presence of complainant for getting the same checked from M&T Lab which was got checked on 05.08.2013. However, during checking no tempering of meter was found. The complainant had never deposited Rs.100/- vide receipt No.56544 dated 21.08.2012. The sundry charges are quite legal and the electricity was being supplied to the complainant from September 2012 to January 2013.  The complainant at no point of time was insisted to have the accuracy of the meter checked in M&T Lab. The YMPL had checked the meter of the complainant in a scientific manner by using a calibrated apparatus called accucheck and Rs17221/- were demanded as charges for unaccounted consumption of electricity. The information sought by the complainant was provided to him by the SPIO. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the OP has tendered affidavit Annexure RX and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R5.

3.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and documents on the file carefully.

4.                          The premises of the complainant where the meter was installed was checked on 31.01.2013 by the inspecting team and at the time of checking the meter was found slow as shown in Annexure C3 i.e. L.L.1 report. The team had suggested for sending the meter to M&T lab for checking the accuracy of the meter and new meter was also installed on the same day. Accordingly, the meter was sent to lab for checking where the status of the meter was not checked but the lab had concluded that the meter was found 83 % slow as checked by M/s YMPL. There was no tempering with the metering system and the meter was found slow due to internal defects as is evident through Annexure C6 i.e. checking report of meter.  It is strange that when the meter had not been checked physically then as to how the Lab had concluded that the meter was found slow. This report itself is contradictory because in one hand the lab had opined that the meter was found slow but on the other hand it has concluded that this is due to internal defect.  As per Annexure C8, the XEN has given an opportunity to the complainant to explain the position and the officer concerned had opined that the complainant/consumer was not at guilty for theft of energy and also opined for dealing the matter as per the instructions of the Nigam. The Ops have taken the matter in very casual manner without bothering the interest of the consumer because they have not bothered to tender the record of M&T lab on the case file and even they have also not placed on record the report of YMPL agency.

5.                          From the above facts and circumstances it is clear that the Nigam has wrongly and illegally sent the bill for the month of August/2012 wherein an amount of Rs.17252/- on account of loss to the Nigam due to slowness of the meter has been mentioned as is evident through Annexure C1 and the bill to the extent of Rs.17252/- is hereby quashed. However, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the OPs are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant from 31.01.2011 to 15.03.2012 on the basis of consumption recorded by the new meter installed on 31.01.2013 which is for disputed period as shown in the Annexure C15/R4 i.e. the information given by the Ops to the complainant under RTI. Hence, we allow the present complaint with the direction to the OPs to adjust/refund the amount deposited by the complainant i.e. disputed amount Rs.17252/- after overhauling the account of the complainant by issuing fresh bill for the said period. 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: 13.10.2017                                               (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

 

(ANAMIKA GUPTA)                       (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

     MEMBER                                     MEMBER