Haryana

Ambala

CC/270/2016

Jagiro Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gian Chand G.P.A

07 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

       Complaint Case No. :  270 of 2016

       Date of Institution    :   12.07.2016

        Date of Decision      :   07.02.2018 

 

Jagiro Devi widow of late Krishan Lal resident of village & PO Kurali The Nariangarh, District Ambala (Haryana) (Through Gen.Power of Attorney Gian Chand s/o Faghu Ram r/o H.No.692, Brhampuri Colony, Narayangarh).

 

……Complainant.

Versus

 

1.Utter Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.  (UHBVN) through SDO Naraingarh Sub- Division, Naraingarh District Ambala.

2.Utter Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (UHVN) through Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle, Ambala City.

3.Utter Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (UHBVN) through the Chief Engineer (OP) UHBVN, Panchkula (Hayana)

……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. Gian Chand GPA, for complainant.

                   Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, Adv. counsel for Ops.

 

ORDER

 

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is having domestic electricity connection bearing account No.Y11KR122106F (Old account No.NN693284) with a sanctioned load 0.5 KW. The complainant received an electricity bill bearing No.2114 dated 03.02.2016 amounting to Rs.15777/- whereas the complainant has only used 173 units and energy was for Rs.621/- and the sundry charges of Rs.14862/- has been mentioned illegally. The complainant approached the SDO, Nariangarh on 11.01.2016, 19.06.2016 and 06.07.2016 and requested to do the needful but to no effect.  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 C9.          

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed joint reply to the complaint wherein it has been submitted that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has no cause of action and locus standi to file the complaint. The OPs had changed old meter of the complainant by new meter being defective meter as per Govt.Policy and accordingly she was issued charges on account of deficit in energy units charged in view of overhauling not being done after meter replacement of defective meter amounting to Rs.15,777/-. The production shown by the meter of Krishan Lal bearing A/c No.NN69-3284 from previous dated 04.11.2011 current date 04.01.2012 was 02 and previous reading 1210 O and current reading is 1600 D and units is 160 Y and since 04.11.2011 the status of the meter was shown to be dead and as such she was issued bills against consumption. The audit observations as per the category DS for load 0.50 KW the proposed recovery on account of deficit in energy units charged and the recovery amount was Rs.19522.20. The bill was sent after adding deficit in energy units charged in view of overhauling not being done and the complainant is liable to pay the same being based against consumption + the charges for replacement of old meter by new electricity meter as per Govt. instructions.  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. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavit Annexure RX and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R4.

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

5.                It is admitted fact that the meter of the complainant remained defective since 2011 to 07/2014 and the Ops have charged average consumption bill from the complainant without verifying the facts as to why the Nigam has charged average consumption bill for such a long period whether the meter was defective or not. Undisputedly, the meter of the complainant was changed in the month of July, 2014 and the amount to be recovered from the complainant has been shown in reply to the tune of Rs.19,522.20/- after overhauling the account as per report of audit for the period from July, 2012 to May, 2014 Annexure R3/R4. It is for the first time on 03.02.2016, the OPs raised this demand vide bill Annexure C2. Prior to this no demand notice was ever issued by the OPs and this time also it has been done on the asking of the Internal Audit Department of OPs. Otherwise, the complainant has been paying the bills regularly and this fact is not disputed by the OPs. This demand is obviously barred by time and the delay can-not be condoned only by taking the pretext of changing the meter.   Though the Ops have placed on case file Internal Audit Half Margin reports as Annexure R3 and R4 but it is strange that no date of audit has been mentioned in these documents which shows that either the same have been prepared just to fill the lacuna or to make only paper transactions without verifying the ground reality.  When the meter was changed in July, 2014 at that time the old meter was to be got tested from M&T lab but the Ops have not done so despite the fact that it was their burdened duty. Moreover, it was the duty of the Nigam to explain as to why they kept on sending the bills on average basis for long period. Undisputedly, the sanctioned load is 0.5 KW and the OPs have sent the demand for almost two years on the basis of Internal Audit but no date of said audit has been disclosed. 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 and due to the lapse on the part of OPs the complainant has to suffer mental agony and in order to get her grievance redress she has to knock at the door of this Forum.

7.                          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 with costs which is assessed at Rs.5,000/- and quashed the sundry charges mentioned in electricity bill Annexure C2 dated 03.02.2016. In the interest of justice the OPs are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant without surcharge for the period from July 2012 to May 2014 on the basis of consumption recorded by new meter from July, 2014 to May, 2015. The amount deposited by the complainant as part payment/ electricity charges be adjusted in the account of the complainant by issuing the bill afresh after overhauling the account. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. Order be complied within a period of 30 days. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED ON: 07.02.2018                                         

 

 

 

(ANAMIKA GUPTA)       (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)           (D.N.ARORA)    

     MEMBER                             MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT