Haryana

Ambala

CC/352/2016

Balbir Singh Jaspal - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Parul Jaspal

19 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                           Complaint No.:352 of 2016.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 15.09.2016.

                                                           Date of Decision: 19.01.2018.

 

Balbir Singh Jaspal Advocate s/o Late Sh.Gurbux Singh resident of house No.87-A, Model Town, Ambala City (aged 57 years).

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

 

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited West Prem Nagar, Ambala City through its SDO.

                                                                             …Opposite Party.

 

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

CORAM:        SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                                                             MS.ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

Present:                Complainant in person.                                                 Sh. Vivek Sachdeva, counsel for the opposite party.

 

ORDER

 

                             Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that complainant is having electricity connection bearing account No. 2112301UMT361056 (Consumer Code I.D. No.8505720000) (old No.AC3-1158).  He received a bill for Rs.2377/- issued on the basis of average basis by charging Rs.477/- as Fuel Surcharge and Rs.15 as Municipal Tax illegally and arbitrarily.  The complainant approached the OP but no satisfactory reply was given by the JE/SDO. On 21.08.2008 the complainant moved an application to the OP for replacing of meter as it went out of order and also deposited Rs.900/- on 21.08.2008 vide receipt No.58 dated 21.08.2008 as per directions of the OP but it failed to replace the same rather kept on charging the bill on average basis. The act and conduct of the OP clearly amounts to deficiency in service on its part besides mental agony and harassment to him.  In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C18.  

2.                          On notice OP appeared and filed its reply wherein preliminary objections such as concealment of material facts and cause of action etc. have been taken. It has been submitted that the meter of the complainant was changed vide letter dated 05.10.2016 and he was very much satisfied with the replaced meter. He had been making the bill on average basis but the present complaint has been filed just to put undue influence upon the OP. The electricity meter of the complainant was changed immediately on moving of application by him. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Other allegations have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OP has tendered affidavit Annexure RX and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R5.

3.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and documents on the file carefully.

4.                          Undisputedly the meter of the complainant has been changed vide MCO No.39/2192 dated 05.10.2016 (Annexure R1) during the pendency of the complaint.  The complainant has come with the plea that the OP has charged the electricity bill on average basis since May 2009  and the Op cannot charge the bill on average basis as they are bound to charge the electricity bill on the basis of actual consumption but the Op has not changed the meter for long period as it went out of order. He made many requests to the OPs for changing of defective meter but they did not change the defective meter which was later on changed on 05.10.2016 during the pendency of the complaint.

                             On the other hand the Op has come with the plea that the meter was replaced immediately on receiving the application on dated 05.10.2016 (Annexure R1) and the complainant himself has also submitted an application (Annexure R2) mentioning therein that he is satisfied with the replacement of the meter and there is no deficiency in service on its part.

                             From the perusal of the file it is clear that as per Annexure R3 i.e. statement of account from the period from May, 2009 to October, 2016 average bill has been charged by the OP from the complainant. We are of the view that it was the duty of the Op to check the meter as per their own rules and instructions which shows that the Op has taken the matter in very casual manner because it is strange it did not bother to produce any report of the meter reader/line man and other officials on the case file. There is no explanation on the case file from the side of OP that as to why it took bill from  the complainant on average basis since long i.e. from May, 2009 to October 2016. Undisputedly, the connection of the complainant is NDS which was installed in the office of the complainant, who is a practicing lawyer having sanctioned load 0.2 KW with one phase connection, therefore, as per judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in case titled as V.Sasidharan Vs. M/s Peter and Karunakar and others AIR 1984 1700  and judgment passed by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in case titled as Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Kapilbhai Mukundrai Bhatt (2009) 2 GLR 1210 wherein it has been held that office of lawyer or firm of lawyer is not commercial establishment.  Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case titled as Shiv Narayan and another Vs. M.P.Electricity Board and others  AIR 1999 246 (M.P.)  has held that Classification of Advocate and Vakil under the heading of “Commercial” for payment of consumption of energy at commercial rate- Is arbitrary and irrational and therefore ultravires of Constitution.  Perusal of the case file reveals that the account of the complainant was overhauled on 01.04.2015 vide Annexure C4 on the basis of checking by audit party. It is strange after overhauling the account of the complainant the OP kept on sending the bill to the compliant on average basis which shows that it did not bother the grievance of the consumers  and takes the matter lightly. This notice is having no value in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed.

7.                                 Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances it is clear that the complainant has proved his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence and the Op is found deficient in providing services to him.  Hence, we allow the present complaint. In the interest of justice the OPs are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant for the period of two years before the date of installation of new meter on 05.10.2016 on the basis of consumption recorded by new meter without levying any surcharge with costs to the tune of Rs.3,000/-. The amount deposited by the complainant be adjusted in the account of the complainant.  The Op is further directed to issue fresh bill keeping in view the consumption recorded by the new meter. 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: 19.01.2018                                              

                                   

 

 

(ANAMIKA GUPTA)          (PUSHPENDER KUMAR) (D.N. ARORA)

     MEMBER                      MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT