Haryana

Ambala

CC/460/2010

JATINDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.JINDAL

17 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

        Complaint Case No. :  460 of 2010

        Date of Institution    :    29.10.2010

                                                               Date of Decision      :  17.11.2015

 

Jatinder Kumar Kalra son of Shri Madan Lal Kalra R/o H.No.106-107, Ekta Vihar, Ambala Cantt.

                                            ……Complainant.

                                                                                          Versus

1.         Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its Chairman.

2.         Sub Divisional Engineer (East) Operation Sub Divn. No.2, UHBVNL, Ambala Cantt.

……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

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

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. R.K. Jindal, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Sarvjeet Singh, Adv.  counsel for Ops.

ORDER.

                        Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as ‘the Act’) alleging therein that  he is having an electricity connection bearing No.MN10-2315K in his residence and usually he is receiving bill for 450-500 units bimonthly and is paying the bills thereof regularly. Complainant has further contended that he received bill No.4006 dated 10.04.2010 for the period from 15.01.2010 to 15.03.2010 wherein units consumed have been shown as 1966 and thereby Ops demanded a sum of Rs.9158/- which was exaggerated. So, a representation dated 19.04.2010 was made to the OP No.2 whereupon OP installed a parallel meter  on 06.05.2010 having its meter reading 11466 in order to check the functioning of the meter in question which was having meter reading 26592. Both the meters were checked on 19.05.2010 and at the parallel meter, reading was 11568 whereas in the original meter, reading was 27934. Again  both the meters were  checked on  10.06.2010 and at that time parallel meter was showing its reading as 11688 whereas the original meter reading was 28233 and so on for one more time.  Thus, the complainant has  submitted that the meter installed  at his house showing excess meter reading.  As per complainant,  the meter was checked in the laboratory but its report was not communicated to him  and thereafter Ops issued next bill No.3997 dated 12.06.2010 having units consumed 6892 of Rs.33,444/- for the period from 15.03.2010 to 15.05.2010; upon which the complainant approached the OP but they failed to adhere the genuine requests of the complainant which is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents/Ops as they compelled the complainant to deposit the amount of electricity which was never consumed by him.  As such, the complainant got deposited a sum of Rs.24,866/-  against Bill dated 12.06.2010 and Rs.9158/-  against Bill dated 10.04.2010 in order to save from disconnection of the supply.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by the complainant seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and submitted reply raising preliminary objections qua  suppression of true and material facts by the complainant.  On merits, it has been  admitted that  during the bill for the period from 15.01.2010 to 15.03.2010, meter of the complainant was fast by 20% as per report of M&T Lab dated 23.06.2010.  The Ops have also submitted that  the accuracy of the check meter installed by them was also under the shadow of doubt. Since, the meter of the complainant was fast by 20% as per report of M&T Lab,  a sum of Rs.8578/- was credited to the account of complainant.  As such, 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 C14 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Sh.Jai Gopal Singh, SDO as Anenxure RX alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 & R-2 and closed evidence on behalf of OP-Nigam.

4.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record minutely. It is admitted case of the parties that on the complaint of complainant, Ops installed a check meter parallel to the meter in question of the complainant and found that the meter of complainant was running fast by 48.72% (Annexure C-3) whereas on checking the faulty meter in the M& T Lab  (though in the absence of complainant) it was found that it was fast by 20% (Annexure R-1) and thus the Ops have  adjusted a sum of Rs.8578/- against the amount demanded vide bill dated 13.08.2010 (Annexure C-4) by preparing a sundry of 3 Bills i.e. 02/2010, 04/2010 & 06/2010 respectively (Annexure R-2). On perusal of these documents, it is evaluated that Ops on its own discarded the report of parallel check meter (Annexure R-3) without any proper reasoning by simply saying that the functioning of check meter was also under shadow of doubt and got the mt\eter in question of complainant checked in the M&T Lab of the Ops at the back of complainant as admittedly no any notice for associating of complainant in the Meter Testing  process has been placed on file by the Ops though the same was mandatory as per rules of the Nigam.  Therefore, we hold that the alleged testing /report of Ops qua 20% fast running of Meter is not binding upon the complainant and thus we do not appreciate it. Besides it, Counsel for the complainant has further  drawn our attention towards bill Annexure C-4 which is for the period from 15.05.2010 to 15.07.2010 showing consumption of 500 units bimonthly for a sum of Rs.1865/- only demanded by the Ops after the bill of disputed period and bills Annexures C-9 to Annexure C-14 relating to the period past to the disputed bills wherefrom the version of complainant made in the complaint is fortified to the effect that he was consuming approximately 500 units bimonthly except the disputed period of excess billing. As such, we find that the meter of the complainant was faulty and thus the Ops have sent wrong & illegal bills dated 10.04.2010 & 12.06.2010 to the complainant.

5.                     So, in view of the discussions referred above, we are of confirmed view that the OPs have issued 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. 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. To refund the amount of Rs.9158/- charged qua consumption of 1966 units vide Bill dated 10.04.2010 relating to the period of 15.01.2010 to 15.03.2010 and amount of Rs.24866/- charged qua consumption of 6892 units vide Bill dated 12.06.2010 relating to the period of 15.03.2010 to 15.05.2010 (after  adjusting the sundry amount of Rs.8578/-) alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum  from the date of deposit.

 

2. Further to overhaul the account of complainant for the disputed period of 15.01.2010 to 15.05.2010 (on the basis of average consumption of previous 12 months prior to the disputed period as mentioned in the Bill dated 10.04.2010, Annexure C-7 under the sub head previous consumption pattern) without any surcharge thereupon rather charge simple interest @ 9% P.A. on the amount  so became due to  OP-Nigam.

 

3. Also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment & mental agony suffered by complainant during the period of 5 years of litigation including litigation charges etc.

 

                                    The aforesaid directions must be complied with by the Ops within 30 days of the communication of this order otherwise all the awarded amounts shall attract interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default and 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:17.11.2015                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                                                (A.K. SARDANA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

           

                                                                                                             Sd/-

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)  

                                                                                                              MEMBER