Haryana

Ambala

CC/37/2015

Rajni - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

11 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

            Complaint Case No. : 37 of 2015

Date of Institution    : 04.02.2015

Date of Decision      : 11.08.2015

Rajni wife of  Late Sh. Hari Singh, Resident of H.No.33, R.K. Puram, Jandli, Ambala City

                                                                                                                                                       ……Complainant.

                                                                          Versus

1.         The S.D.O. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. UHBVNL Model Town, Ambala City.

2.         The XEN, ‘OP’ Division, Model Town, UHBVNL, Ambala City.

                                                                                                                                      ……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

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

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Complainant in person.

                        Sh. Sarvjeet Singh, Adv. counsel for Ops.

 

ORDER.

                        Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that she is having an electricity connection bearing Account No.MT55-1628 (A4-4999 Old)  installed at her house by the OPs  and she had been paying electricity bills regularly as per actual consumption of the energy.  It has been further alleged by the complainant that there are some errors in the bill sent by the OPs to the complainant w.e.f. 30.09.2013 to onwards which requires rectification to avoid further complication in the meter which are detailed as under:-

SR. No.	Duration	Unit consumed	Bill amount
1.	30.09.2013 to 30.11.2013	80	625/-
2.	30.11.2013 to 30.01.2014	80	258/-
3.	30.01.2014 to 31.03.2014	100	631/-
4.	31.03.2014 to 31.05.2014	346	10273/-
5.	30.09.2014 to 30.11.2014	193	19885/-

 

                        It is further submitted that the office of Ops has issued bills twicely to the complainant for the same period by showing different consumption & different bill amount which is a grave deficiency in service on their part.  Complainant has paid almost all the bills to Ops  but the Ops sending the bills again & again for which they have already received bill amount from the complainant and are including arrears of sundry charges etc. in the present bill for which the complainant is not liable to pay. Complainant submitted that she is a widow and is being harassed by the official of the OPs for no fault on her part and in this way, the Ops have failed to provide satisfactorily services to the complainant  and she is unable to pay the huge amount which the OP  is showing as arrears against the bills issued to her. In the end, the complainant has prayed that Ops be directed to correct the bills mentioned in the complaint and to send bills as per actual consumption and also to pay her a sum of Rs.20,000/- as damages on account of harassment & cost of litigation.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objection that the present complaint is not maintainable and complainant has suppressed the material facts from the learned Forum. On merits,  it has been urged that the Meter Reader took the reading of the meter installed against the electricity connection of the complainant on 31.01.2011 and due to mistake on the part of Meter Reader, the meter status was shown as defective (‘D’ code), although the meter  was working properly.  So, the average bills were served on the complainant from 31.01.2011 to 25.04.2014 and the ‘D-Code’ in the ledger could not have been corrected until the Meter Reader reported the working of the meter as OK. As the meter status continued to be defective, so, as per the advice sent by billing agency i.e. Hartron which prepares the bills on behalf of UHBVN, the meter of the complainant was changed on the basis of the exception list sent by Hartron.  The exception list exhibits the defective meters and on  the basis of the exception list, the MCO (Meter Change Order) dated 11.08.2014 was issued and accordingly the meter of the complainant was changed on 11.08.2014 with new meter.  The mistake regarding wrong meter status i.e. D Code was detected and it transpired that the actual consumption of the complainant was available as  the meter reading was being taken regularly by the meter Reader. So, the account of the complainant for the period from June 2013 to April 2014 was overhauled on the basis of actual consumption recorded by the old/replaced meter. After overhauling the account, a sum of Rs.7933/- became payable by the complainant which was debited in the account of the complainant vide sundry No.22 dated 30.05.2014 and the above stated amount was firstly demanded from the complainant vide bill dated 23.06.2014. In this way Op  has requested that there is no any deficiency on their part as they are maintaining proper record of the bills of complainant and thus the complaint against them may kindly be dismissed.

3.                     To prove her case, complainant tendered her affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-20 and closed her evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered affidavit of Sh. Narender Jaglan, SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division, UHBVNL, Ambala City as Annexure RX alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.                        

4.                     We have heard the complainant as well as counsel for the Ops and gone through the record very carefully.  The main grouse of the complainant  is that since 30.09.2013 to 30.11.2014, OP is sending defective bills to the complainant charging excess electricity bills irrespective of the electricity consumed by her and thus these bills are inflated one and requires rectification whereas  counsel for the OP urged that due to mistake on the part of Meter Reader, the meter status of the electricity connection installed at the house of the complainant was shown as defective although the meter was working properly and therefore, the billing was done on average basis w.e.f. 31.01.2011 to 25.04.2014 and due to aforesaid entry of defective meter in the records of the Op, the MCO i.e. Meter Change Order was issued  regarding electricity connection of the complainant on 11.08.2014 and thus the account of the complainant for the period from June 2013 to April 2014 was overhauled on the basis of actual consumption recorded by old /replaced meter and accordingly a sum of Rs.7933/- became payable by the complainant which was debited in the account of the complainant vide sundry item No.22 dated 30.05.2014 and demanded from the complainant vide  bill dated 23.06.2014.

5.                     After hearing the complainant as well as counsel for Ops and perusing the record, it is an admitted fact on record that meter of the complainant was shown as defective wrongly by the Meter Reader of the OP Nigam  as it has been stated by the OP itself in its reply meaning thereby that due to deficiency/negligence on the part of official of the Nigam, the complainant was issued wrong bills on average basis resulting into creation of sundry of Rs.7933/- in the bill dated 23.06.2014 (Annexure C-1) issued by the OP.  Further  from perusal of electricity bill dated 23.12.2014 (Annexure C-10) and bill dated 16.07.2015(Annexure C-20), it reveals  that the sundry amount of Rs.7933/- became Rs.18935/- in the bill dated 23.12.2014 and further Rs.22387.96NP in the bill dated 16.07.2005 as arrears to which the complainant is not liable to pay since it all happened due to deficiency in service on the part of Meter Reader of OP Nigam. Had the electricity bills were sent to the complainant on actual consumption, she must have deposited the same with the OP Nigam in time as she was paying regularly prior to it.  Further on perusal  of other documents/bills placed on file by the complainant as Annexures C-2 to C-19, it reveals that 80-100 units are being consumed by complainant bimonthly  wherefrom it is presumed that no such heavy electricity consumption may occur in the electricity bills of the complainant as shown in some bills issued  to the complainant. Further the OP’s are also admittedly deficient in wrongly issuing the Meter Change Order (M.C.O.) qua the meter of complainant on 11.08.2014 as the Meter was not defective as per their own version and in this way, OP’s have wrongly charged as Rs.1000/- against M.C.O from the complainant vide sundry item No. 17 dated 29.09.2014 (Annexure R-4) tendered by Ops in their evidence and thus the amounts so levied  upon the complainant in the bills vide different sundry’s are liable to be quashed.

                        So, in view of the discussion 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.

                         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 arrears of Rs.22387.96 NP as shown in the bill dated 29.06.2015(Annexure C-20).

 

2. Further to overhaul the account  of the complainant w.e.f 30.09.2013 to  till date billing the electricity account of the complainant (on the basis of average consumption of six months from the date of installation of new meter) without charging  any surcharge thereupon and the amounts, if any, deposited by the complainant during  the period 30.09.2013 to till date against the said electricity  connection be minused/deducted therefrom.

 

3. Also to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as litigation charges.

 

                                    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: 11.08.2015  

                                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                              (A.K. SARDANA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

                                                                                               Sd/-

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)   

   MEMBER