Haryana

Ambala

CC/59/2014

HAKUMAT RAI S/O HARI SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI NADRA

10 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL Forum

                                                                                                   Complaint Case No. :    59 of 2014

                                                                                                    Date of Institution    :    20.02.2014

                                        Date of Decision      :    10.11.2015

Hakumat Rai S/o Sh. Hari Singh aged 62 years resident of 524, Sector-8, Ambala City.

……Complainant.

Versus

1.         Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula, through its Chairman/Managing Director.

2.         Executive Engineer (OP), Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) Ambala City.

3.         Sub Divisional Officer (OP) SubDivision, UHBVNL East, Ambala City.

……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. Ashwani Nandra, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. Vikas Sharma, Adv. for Ops.

ORDER.

                        Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that  he is having domestic electricity connection bearing No.AE14-2620-N Old No.Hi-18 and since the day of installation of the meter, he is consuming 400-500 units bimonthly i.e. for two months and paying the bills regularly. In the month of September 2013, Meter Reader disclosed that the meter is not functioning properly and thus a complaint was made to Ops on 15.07.2013 & 27.09.2013 whereupon the OP orally disclosed that the meter is burnt and needs to be replaced. As such, the complainant purchased a new meter which was installed by the Ops in November 2013.   It has been further alleged by the complainant that though  he was paying bills regularly yet the Ops sent bill  No.02541 dated 11.11.2013 in the month of November 2013 showing old meter reading as 20007 and new meter reading Zero for a period of two months showing units consumed as 1434 and a sum of Rs.13997/- was claimed as tariff by the Ops. The complainant approached to the Ops No.2 & 3 for correcting the bill but of no use rather  the OP sent another  bill bearing no. 02566 dated 07.01.2014 showing units consumed as 6656 and thereby to pay a sum of Rs.64835/- illegally  and without actual consumption. Hence, the present complaint  has been preferred by the complainant seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint and concealment of true facts. On merits, it has been admitted that meter of the complainant was replaced in the month of November 2013.  It is also admitted that OPs issued bill No.2541 dated 11.11.2013 showing 1434 units on the basis of average consumption for last year and as such a bill for Rs.13997/- was claimed from the complainant.  It has been further submitted by the Ops that  when meter of the complainant was replaced then it had final reading as 27941 units and this fact is also mentioned in the Meter Change Order dated 27.08.2013 which was signed by the complainant after verifying all the facts mentioned in it whereas the complainant paid the electricity consumption  charges till the reading of 20007 units and a bill against the consumption of 7934 units was outstanding against  the complainant out of which 1434 units already claimed vide bill No.02541 dated 11.11.2013 and thus bill for consumption of 6500 units is remained outstanding against the complainant and when the meter got replaced, at that time old reading was 2 units and new reading was 158 units and thus the complainant further consumed 156 units and so, an electricity bill for 6656 units was outstanding against  the complainant which was claimed vide bill No.02566 dated 07.01.2004, as such, the Ops have submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                     In evidence, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C1 to C-5 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Ops  tendered affidavits of Sh. J.C. Narwal, SDO & Sh. Gurmail Singh, JE of  UHBVNL as Anenxure RX & RY alongwith document as Annexure R-1 and closed evidence on behalf of OP-Nigam.  

 

 

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very minutely. The main grievance of the complainant is that his electricity meter was not working properly and as such he moved an application to OP on 15.07.2013 regarding checking of the meter.  Ops checked the meter and found it as burnt. Accordingly, the complainant purchased a new meter and deposited  it with the OP for installation in August 2013 and the OP installed the meter in the month of November 2013 i.e. after a gap of three months and  sent wrong & illegal bills dated 11.11.2013 & 07.01.2014 for Rs.13997/- and 64835/- respectively without any basis which are  likely to be rectified.  

5.                     At the very outset, it is admitted fact on record that the new meter was installed by the Ops in the premises of complainant in the month of November 2013 i.e. after a gap of three months from the date of deposit of the new meter by complainant with the Ops as clear from the issuance of M.C.O. by Op No.2 on 27.08.2013 (Annexure R-1) which itself is a grave deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  Further the version of Ops regarding claiming of charges of Rs.13997/- for consumption of 1434 units vide bill dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure C-2) and Rs.64835/- for consumption of 6656 units vide bill dated  07.01.2014 (Annexure C-1) are not believable since the Ops have alleged the reading of old meter as 27941 in M.C.O. effected on 01.11.2013 (Annexure R-1) whereas after replacing the meter on 01.11.2013, Ops have sent a bill dated 11.11.2013 of 1434 units only but not sent the bill of 7934 units (27941-20007) as alleged in the para No.6  of the Reply/Written statement  filed by Ops. Further no any report of meter testing from M&T Lab has been produced by Ops though the burnt meter was mandatorily required to be inspected in the M&T Lab in the presence of complainant. Besides it, the version of Ops that complainant signed the M.C.O. after verifying  all the facts is also wrong as there is no any signature of the consumer on the document Annexure R-1 produced by Ops on the file rather there appears to be a signature of some other person instead of complainant Hakumat Rai as prima facie they do not tally with  the  signatures   put by the complainant on copy of complaint. So,  in these circumstances, we disbelieve the version put by the Ops and as such, it is also unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.

                        So, in view of the discussions referred above, we are of confirmed view that the OPs have issued some inflated bills to the complainant during the disputed period and as such we have no hesitation in holding that Ops are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant as well as have adopted unfair trade practice.  Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

1. Not to charge amounts of Rs.13,997/- & 64835/- respectively as  demanded vide Bill No.2541 dated 11.11.2013  &  Bill No.02566  dated 07.01.2014 (Annexures C-2 & C-1)  respectively.

 

2. Further to overhaul the account of the complainant w.e.f 15.06.2013 to 15.12.2013 on the basis of average consumption of corresponding  months  of the previous year without charging  any surcharge thereupon and the amounts deposited by the complainant during  the said period be adjusted against the electricity  connection of complainant.

 

3. Also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges  as well as compensation for harassment & mental agony.

 

                                    The aforesaid directions must be complied with by the Ops within 30 days of the communication of this order otherwise the complainant shall be entitled to get the same enforced under due provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED:10.11.2015                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                  (A.K. SARDANA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

                                                                                                         Sd/-

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)  

                                                                                                              MEMBER