Haryana

Ambala

CC/15/142

Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

In person.

18 Apr 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

       Complaint Case No. :    142 of 2015

      Date of Institution    :     22.05.2015

        Date of Decision      :     18.04.2017

 

1.         Satish Kumar son of Sh. Chaman Lal, aged about 44 years, resident of House No. 7682/4, Nadi Mohalla, Ambala City.

 

……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.         Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Executive Engineer, Operation Division, UHBVNL, Dhulkot, Ambala.  

2.         The Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division, UHBVNL, A 33 (west), Ambala City.

 

……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:          Complainant in person.

                        Sh. Saravjeet Singh, Adv. counsel for Ops.

 

ORDER.

 

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is having an electricity connection bearing A/c No. K012-1735-Y (old account No. Z2-1519A)  and now new account No. 9265920000 and the same is installed in the name of mother of the complainant i.e Smt. Uma Rani who has died on 13-11-2012 and the sanctioned load of the meter of the premises is 2 KM. The complainant is paying the electricity bills regularly issued by the UHBVNL, timely without any fault. The complainant is using the electricity with minimum requirement and he is paying the bills from Rs. 600/- to Rs. 1,000/- only being the poor person. In the month of 10/2014, the electricity meter of the complainant was running too much fast and he received the bills of consumption from the department of 919 units i.e. amounting to Rs. 6,942/- and in the next month the bill was received for 4,430 unites total bill has been received for amount of Rs. 42,710/- before this the complainant was paying the bills to the department regularly amounting to Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/- only. The complainant was too much harassed after receipt of this bills of big amount and he immediately reported the matter to SDO concerned and SDO concerned and other officials told the complainant to deposit Rs. 4,000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 3,000/-  will be deposited after few time by the complainant. The complainant showed his inability to deposit such a huge amount being the poor person. Thereafter, the SDO concerned advised the complainant to deposit Rs. 250/- fee for checking the electricity meter in question and the SDO further told that they will check that the meter is fast or not. The complainant obliged the SDO concerned and he deposited Rs. 250/- with the UHBVNL. After checking, the complainant was told that his meter has been found running fast and hence the concerned officials adviced the complainant to deposit Rs. 30,000/-. The complainant requested the SDO concerned that he is unable to deposit such a huge amount. After sometime the concerned department directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- verbally and they advised the complainant to deposit the same amount with the department. But the complainant showed his inability to deposit the bills as the same is beyond his capacity. The complainant has requested to all officials concerned of the UHBVNL, Ambala, but in vain as nobody is ready to listen the genuine requests of the complainant and hence the necessity of the present complaint. As such, the complainant has prayed that OPs be directed to declare the bill issued during the month of January 2015 for Rs. 42,710/- demanded against electricity connection of the complainant is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the complainant and withdraw the said wrong and illegal amount from the account of the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is admitted that the meter installed against the above mentioned electricity connection was running fast in the month of October 2014 and the bill for the consumption of 919 units was raised by the opposite parties. It is also not denied that the subsequent bill for 4430 units was raised against the above mentioned electricity connection by the opposite parties. It is submitted that the complainant moved an application 30-10-2014 before the opposite party No. 2, wherein the complainant alleged the meter in question was running fast and the complainant has received the bill to the tune of Rs. 7,000/-. In the above mentioned application, the complainant also requested to check the meter. On the said application of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 got the requisite fee deposited from the complainant for the installation of check meter to the determine the accuracy of the meter. The check meter was installed vide SJO No. 946/11 dated 30-10-2014 on 31-10-2014. The check meter was removed on 04-11-2014 and at the time of removal of check meter it became clear that the meter was running fast. In order to determine the exact percentage by which the meter was running fast, the meter was sent to M&T Lab on 19-12-2014. In the Lab, accuracy of the meter was checked on electronic test bench in the presence of complainant and the meter was found to be fast by 59.94 %. Thereafter, the defective/fast meter of the complainant was replaced with a new meter vide MCO dated 12-11-2014, which was effected on 17-11-2014. Thereafter, the account relating to above mentioned electricity connection was overhauled from October 2014 to February 2015 as during these months the consumer was billed for the consumption recorded defective meter. The defective meter had recorded the total consumption of 5468 units whereas keeping in view the fact that the meter was fast by 59.94%, the actual consumption was worked out at 2217 units. So, charges for balance 3251 units alongwith surcharge was refunded to the complainant. The refund of Rs. 23,654/- has already been given to the complainant. Hence, the grouse of the complainant has already been mollified by the opposite parties.   Hence, it is prayed that the complaint of the complainant being false, frivolous, fabricated and devoid of any merits may kindly be dismissed with costs.

3.                     To prove his version, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C1 to C-21 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered affidavit Anenxure RX alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-5 and closed evidence on behalf of OPs. 

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully.  The main grievance of the complainant is that the meter in question has become defective in October 2014. On the request of the complainant, the OP has installed the check meter and as per check meter there is low consumption has been shown in comparison of meter which is installed in the premises of the complainant. The opposite party has overhauled the account of the complainant for the effective period on the basis of M&T Lab report instead of consumption shown in the check meter. But opposite party has removed the old meter and replace with the new meter vide MCO dated 12-11-2014, which was effected on 17-11-2014 as per affidavit filed by SDO, UHBVNL, Ambala.

                        On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party has argued that as per M&T lab report annexure R2, which is shown to be 59.94% fast and accordingly opposite party has overhauled the account of the complainant for the period October 2014 to February 2015 as during these months consumption was built for consumption recorded by the defective meter as per annexure R5 i.e. detail of the overhaul the account of the complainant. Defective meter had recorded thee total consumption of 5468 units whereas keeping in view of the above said facts that the meter was fast by 59.94%, the actual consumption was worked out at 2217 unites. So, charges for balance 3251 units along with surcharge was refunded to the complainant. The refund of Rs. 23,654/- has already been given to the complainant.

5.                     After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we have come to the conclusion that the Meter was checked by M & T lab and found to be running fast. Therefore, on the basis of the report of M&T Lab, the OP has overhaul the bill of the complainant as is clear from document Annexure R-5 (containing two pages). In view of the above discussion, we find no deficiency on the part of the OPs and the complainant is liable to pay the bill amount after overhauling the same if any outstanding is due against the complainant. Accordingly, the present complaint is, hereby, dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED ON:  18.04.2017.                                            (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

 

                 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                            MEMBER

 

                                                                       

                                                                                                (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                                            MEMBER