Haryana

Ambala

CC/131/2014

RAJINDER KUMAR W/O DES RAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

T.S.TEJI

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

                    BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                                                                     Complaint Case No. :  131 of 2014

         Date of Institution    :   19.05.2014

                                                          Date of Decision      :   24.02.2016

Rajinder Kumar son of late Sh. Des Raj R/o H.No.811 Sector -9, Urban Estate, Ambala City.

……Complainant.

Versus

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

2.         Sub Divisional Officer, A-32 East, Ambala City Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Operation Sub Division, Ambala City ( East).

……Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

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

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. T.S. Teji, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Sarvjeet Singh, Adv. counsel for Ops.  

ORDER.

                        Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that he is having a domestic electricity connection  of 3 phase  vide account No.AE-09-4055-F since last many years and in the month of June 2013,  Meter Reader told him that the meter installed at his electricity connection is not functioning properly due to defect in it.  So, the complainant submitted an application to the Ops on 17.06.2013 for changing the meter but no response. Thereafter, complainant received a bill dated 10.09.2013 for the period 15.06.2013 to 15.08.2013  for consumption  of 11459 units amounting to Rs.79572/-  and thus complainant again moved another application on 26.09.2013 vide diary no.366 agitating issuance of bill dated 10.09.2013 for huge amount but no result.  However, the complainant deposited Rs.15,000/- on 28.11.2013 as part payment of the next disputed bill dated 11.11.2013 in order to avoid disconnection as the applicant was away at abroad.  Thereafter, the Ops sent another Bill dated 07.01.2014 demanding a sum of Rs.84786/- but inspite of various requests made to Ops, they did not change the defective meter rather due to heavy rains in January 2014, the said meter suddenly burnt on 22.01.2014  and complaint was lodged to office of OP No.2 vide diary no.866 dated 24.01.2014 since the staff of Nigam was on strike for 2 days.  Thereafter, the Ops installed the new meter on 28.01.2014 but issued again an inflated bill dated 11.03.2014 demanding a sum of Rs.88384/- for the consumption as well as arrears of the previous bills and threatened to disconnect supply if complainant failed to pay the same and thus having no alternative, complainant again deposited Rs.40,000/- through cheque No.592942 dated 18.03.2014 to avoid disconnection of electricity connection.  As such,  complainant has contended that Ops have sent inflated bills arbitrarily which is a deficiency in service on their part and further prayed that Ops be directed to take average bill of consumption from complainant qua electricity consumed during the period of defective meter and also sought compensation for harassment etc.

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint  and suppression of material facts. On merits, it has been urged that  bill in the negative to the tune of Rs.-824/- was issued on account of previous adjustment and not due to the reason that the meter had become defective rather it was contended that  OP issued a bill dated 10.09.2013 for the period of 15.06.2013 to 15.08.2013  for the consumption of 11459 units since the meter of the complainant was working properly during the said period as  evident from the meter status code on the bill where the meter has been shown as OK. It has been further urged by the Op that  if the meter of the complainant was defective, Meter Reader would have reported the status of meter to be defective and the bill would have been served with meter status code as ‘D’.  However, it has been admitted by the Ops that  application dated 26.09.2013 was moved by the complainant challenging the bill dated 10.09.2013  whereupon the OP directed the complainant to  deposit the requisite fee for getting the functioning  of the meter checked from M&T Lab but the complainant failed to deposit the fee and instead deliberately & intentionally burnt the meter on 22.01.2014 since the meter  cannot burnt due to rains as the same was installed in the pillar box. Moreover, the meter did not burnt on 22.01.2014 as alleged by the  complainant since the bill dated 07.01.2014  was served on the complainant with the meter status code as ‘D’ i.e. Defective which clearly shows that the meter burnt before 07.01.2014 and thus the complainant has concocted a false story to avoid the payment of electricity consumed by him.   In the absence of report of M& T Lab, meter of complainant cannot be presumed to be defective and no adjustment can be made in respect of bill dated 10.09.2013 however, burnt meter of the complainant was changed with the new meter on 28.01.2014 vide Meter Change Order dated 24.01.2014. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and  prayed for  dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     In evidence, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-23 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Ops  tendered affidavit of Sh. J.C. Narwal 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 counsels for the parties and perused the record minutely. The main grievance of the complainant is that his electricity meter was not working properly as such he moved an application (Annexure C-2) to OP on 17.06.2013 regarding checking defect in the meter but the OP did not take any action on this application  rather sent a bill dated 10.09.2013  of Rs.79572/-  showing consumption of 11459 units during the period ranging between 15.06.2013 to 15.08.2013. So, the complainant  moved another application dated 26.09.2013 agitating the said bill  but no solution was made by OP rather continued sending inflated bills bi-monthly i.e. of Rs.94742/- on 11.11.2013, of Rs.84786/- on 07.01.2014 and of Rs.88384/- on 11.03.2014 adding surcharges etc. on the inflated amount of the bill dated  10.09.2013 though to avoid disconnection of electricity, he deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 28.11.2013 and Rs.40,000/- on 18.03.2014 as part payment of the disputed bill.  However during the said disputed period of inflated bills i.e. 15.06.2013 to 15.02.2014, the meter of complainant was changed on 28.01.2014 due to burning. Counsel for complainant further argued that prior to the disputed period, the complainant was receiving bills  of not more than 400 units bimonthly. As such, the Ops have wrongly issued the bills dated 10.09.2013, 11.11.2013, 07.01.2014 & 11.03.2014  (Annexure C-3, C-5,C-11 & C-13 respectively) which are illegal and thus requires to be rectified.  

                        On the other hand, counsel for Ops have argued that the bill dated 10.09.2013 of Rs.79572/- was issued on actual meter reading basis and there was no defect in the meter. The complainant was asked to deposit requisite fee for having the functioning  of meter checked from M & T Lab but he did not deposit the requisite fee rather deliberately  & intentionally burnt the meter on 22.01.2014.  However, meter of the complainant was replaced with new one on 28.01.2014 vide MCO dated 24.01.2014 and in the absence of report from M&T lab, the meter of the complainant cannot be presumed to be defective and no adjustment can be made in respect of bill dated 10.09.2013.

5.                     At the very outset, it is an admitted fact on record  that in the Bill dated 07.01.2014(Annexure C-11) alleged to be the period of 15.10.2013 to 15.12.2013, meter in dispute has been shown as defective (‘D’) under the sub head meter status code as stated by the meter  Reader of OP  whereas SDO of OP Nigam is stating in the  affidavit dated 01.09.2015 (Annexure R-X) that “in the absence of report from M&T lab, the meter cannot be presumed to be Defective”  which are self contradictory stands of OP Nigam and thus are not trustworthy.  As such, we have no option except to hold that the meter installed at the premises of complainant became defective prior to 15.10.2013 as reported by Meter Reader of OP-Nigam.  Even otherwise, we have perused the documents Annexure C-12 to C-21  which are electricity bills issued  by the Ops Nigam to the complainant during

the year of 2013 & 2014 wherefrom it reveals that the electricity consumption of the complainant is very-very low in comparison to the disputed bill dated 10.09.2013. Further the perusal of bill dated 11.03.2014 (Annexure C-13), it reveals that after installation of new meter by OP in January 2014, consumption of complainant is 112 units only which is also very low in comparison to 11459 units shown to be consumed in the bill dated 10.09.2013. Besides it, the Ops have not placed on record any document vide which they have demanded fee from  the complainant for  installing the check meter at his premises   or getting the meter in dispute tested from M & T Lab as alleged in the reply to complainant though complainant has submitted applications to replace the meter in question which is admittedly a deficiency in service on their part.    

                        So, in view of the discussion referred above, we are of confirmed view that the OPs have issued inflated bills dated 10.09.2013, 11.11.2013, 07.01.2014 & 11.03.2014 ( Annexure C-3, C-5, C-11 & C-13 respectively) to the complainant during the disputed period i.e. 15.06.2013 to 15.02.2014 and as such we have no hesitation in holding that Ops are not only deficient in providing proper services to the complainant  rather guilty of adopting 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. To overhaul the account of complainant  for the disputed period w.e.f  15.06.2013 to 15.02.2014 (on the basis of the consumption recorded during corresponding period of previous year when the meter was functional & recording correctly as per sales circular No.U-15/2014) without charging any surcharge thereupon since the complainant has deposited Rs.55000/- during the said period against electricity consumption and refund the amount, if any, deposited in excess by the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-  on account of harassment, mental agony & litigation charges etc.

 

                                    The aforesaid directions must be complied with by the Ops within the stipulated period otherwise the awarded amounts shall fetch simple 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: 24.02.2016                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                             (A.K. SARDANA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

 

                                                                                                           Sd/-

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)  

                                                                                                              MEMBER