Haryana

Ambala

CC/116/2015

Shyam Sunder goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

In person.

26 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

       Complaint Case No. :    116 of 2015

       Date of Institution    :    28.04.2015

        Date of Decision      :    26.10.2017

 

Shyam Sunder Goel s/o Sh.Vidya Sagar, 1125 Kartar Nagar Ambala City M-09466324940 Email: goelshyamsunder9@gmail.com

……Complainant.

Versus

 

SDO (O) UHBVN (MT) New Model Colony, Ambala City.

 

……Opposite Party.

 

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.Sarvjeet Singh, Adv. counsel for Ops.

 

ORDER

 

                        Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is having two separate meters of electricity at 1^st floor and 2^nd floor. The consumption of electric meter A2 878 was 329, 281, 14 and 210 units only from 15.01.2010 to 15.01.2012 but he was billed for 400, 400, 68 and 400 units respectively. He visited the Op and enquired the matter but it was told to him that his meter was faulty and would be replaced/ changed in due course and till then bill would be sent on average basis and he would be entitled for the adjustment of the amount on the basis of actual consumption. The complainant again visited the OP after 09.04.2013 when he was issued notice to recover Rs.3204/- due to audit objection but the OP wanted to penalize the innocent consumer. On 08.05.2013, the complainant made a complaint in writing to the SDO (OP) UHBVN, Badshahi Bag Ambala City qua tempering of the meter of the shop of complainant by the staff of the OP and no action to change the meter has been taken till date and the complainant is being billed on higher side.  The complainant has also reported about suspected corruption in the change of three number police damaged in accident by an oversized/overloaded truck in Amba Market and he has been penalized for reporting electric thefts. He was wrongly billed for Rs.3204/- vide bill dated 02.06.2013 by issuing of back date notice. The OP has issued bill dated 07.10.2013 wrongly for 1551 units whereas the Nigam had already recovered the bill for consumption of units upto 13905 in the previous bill. On 09.04.2013 the OP has wrongly issued demand notice for Rs.3204/- and then on 07.10.2013 the OPs recovered Rs.10269/- wrongly and now through notice dated 11.03.2015 the OP has demanded Rs.21221/-. The meter of the complainant got changed with the help of brother of the complainant. The complainant has suffered an irreparable loss due to deficiency in service rendered by the OP by not changing the meter. The act and conduct of the OP clearly amounts to deficiency in service on its part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C30.  

 2.                    Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that the meter of the complainant remained defective from 15.05.2010 to 15.09.2013, therefore, the bill should have been sent on average basis but billing for the period from 15.05.2010 to 15.09.2010, 15.11.2010 to 15.05.2011 and for 15.09.2011 to 15.11.2011 were not done on average basis so during audit vide half margin No.32/3128, therefore, the bill should have been sent on average basis but billing for the period from 15.05.2010 to 15.09.2010, 15.11.2010 to 15.05.2011 and for 15.09.2011 to 15.11.2011 were not done on average basis so during audit vide half margin No.32/3128 the account for the aforementioned period for which the billing was not done on average basis during defective period was overhauled and the complainant was charged on average basis during the aforementioned period, therefore, a demand of Rs.3204/- was raised against the complainant. Vide notice bearing No.872 MT-Audit H/M dated 09.04.2013 the complainant was called upon by the OP to show cause within seven days as to why the amount of Rs.3204/- should not be charged from him.  The complainant had been failed to show cause, therefore, an amount of Rs.3204/- was transferred to the account of the complainant vide sundry No.18 dated 08.05.2013. After installation of new meter the account for the defective period was overhauled by the audit party. After reconsidering the audit report the account of the complainant was overhauled on the basis of actual consumption recorded by the previous meter during the defective period from 15.11.2010 to 15.09.2013. On 15.11.2010 the reading shown by the previous meter was 6045 units whereas the reading shown on 15.09.2013 was 14442 units. The old meter had showed the consumption of 8398 units and out of these 8398 units the complainant had already billed for 5261 units and 830 units vide half margin No.32/3128, therefore, the complainant had already paid for 6101 units. The complainant had to pay Rs.12794/- for remaining 2297 units  and the above stated amount was transferred to the account of the complainant vide sundry No.2/44 dated 31.03.2015  and the demand was first raised vide bill dated 19.05.2015. The amount of Rs.10269/- paid by the complainant has already been adjusted against the bill dated 07.10.2013 during overhauling of the account.  The bill dated 02.06.2013 and 07.10.2013 have rightly been issued. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Other contentions made in the complaint 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 R11.

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

5.                     The complainant has argued that the meter in question had remained defective since 15.05.2010 to 15.09.2013 and the OP is taking the average charges without following any criteria qua taking units on average basis. The defective meter in question was replaced with new meter on 06.11.2013 vide MCO dated 22.10.2013 and complainant has subsequently enhanced the load of the meter from 2 KW to 5 KW.

6.                     On the other hand counsel for the OP has argued that there is no dispute that the meter had remained defective since 15.05.2010 to 15.09.2013 but the bill has been sent to the complainant on average basis.

7.                     In view of the above, it is ample clear that this Forum can only overhaul the account of the complainant from 15.05.2010 to 15.09.2013 on the basis of previous consumption for the period of 15.05.2009 to 15.05.2010 when the meter was working properly and recorded consumption accurately. This Forum cannot take into consideration the consumption recorded by the new meter because the load was enhanced from 2 KW to 5 KW. In the interest of justice, present complaint is disposed off with the direction to the OP to overhaul the account of the complainant from 15.05.2010 to 15.09.2013 after taking into consideration the previous consumption recorded by the meter for the period from 15.05.2009 to 15.05.2010.  It is made clear if the complainant has deposited any amount during the period from 15.05.2010 to 15.09.2013 then the same would be adjusted in the future bills and the OPs would sent the revised bill to the complainant without any surcharge. Both the parties would bear their own costs.  Copy 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: 26.10.2017                                               (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

 

(ANAMIKA GUPTA)                                               (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

     MEMBER                                                             MEMBER