Haryana

Ambala

CC/454/2016

Kedar Nath Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sarvjeet Singh

30 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                     FORUM, AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.          :  454 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution          :  21.12.2016

                                                          Date of decision     :  30.04.2018

 

Kedar Nath Sharma son of Sh. Kulwant Rai Sharma, aged about 63 years, resident of H.No.123, Prabhu  Prem Puram, Ambala Cantt.

    ……. Complainant.

 

                                                          Vs.

 

1.       Uttar Haryana BijliVitran Nigam Ltd. through Executive Engineer,Operation Division UHBVN, Ambala Cantt, 12 Cross Road, Ambala Cantt.

2.       SDO Operation, Sub-Division UHBVN, Babyal, Ambala Cantt.

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties

 

Before:        Sh. D.N.Arora, President,

                   Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member

                            

 

Present:       Sh. Sarvajeet Singh,  counsel for complainant.  

                   Sh. Chandeep Bindra,  counsel for the Ops.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant has obtained an electricity connection of Domestic Supply Category with a sanction load of 3.8 KW, from the Ops, vide account no.YD25-1131-P. The said electricity connection stands installed at the residential address of the complainant given in the heading of the complaint. The energy meter installed against the above said electricity connection of the complainant got defective during the period of 15.05.2014 to 15.07.2014 and for the said period, the complainant received the bill on PYM basis(Previous year same month basis). During the said period it had already come to the notice of OP No.2 that the meter of the complainant had become defective but the OP No.2 did not take any steps to replace the defective meter with the new meter. The meter of the complainant was finally changed on 05.11.2015, when the complainant himself moved an application for the replacement of defective meter and until then the bills were being served on the complainant either on PMY basis or average load basis. On the application of the complainant, the defective energy meter was replaced with the new meter on 05.11.2015 vide checking report i.e. LL-1 No.50/264 dated 05.11.2015. In the said LL-1 it has been duly mentioned that reading was NV i.e. not visible (R.N.V.). Thereafter, the removed/defective meter of the complainant was checked in M & T Lab on 18.04.2016 in the presence of the complainant. During checking in M & T Lab it was found that the meter was dead stop. In M & T Lab the meter was opened for internal examination and not tempering was observed to have taken place with the meter. The result of the checking was reduced to writing in the shape of report. In the said report reading in the meter has been mentioned as 79655.9. The said figure of 79655.9 units is fictitious as in the LL-1 it has been clearly mentioned that the reading was not visible.  While signing the said checking report, the complainant had given a note in the report just above his signature that he did not agree with the reading stated in the report. After the checking of meter in M & T Lab the matter was put to rest. He got surprised when he receive the bill dated 12.12.2016, wherein the Ops have demanded a sum of Rs. 3,65,053/- as arrears. On the query of the complainant, Ops failed to give any details regarding the arrears. As at the time of checking of meter in M & T Lab the reading in the meter was found as 79655.9 units, whereas the complainant has been billed till 30200 units, so the charges for the remaining units have been demanded. He further stated that the reading stated in the M & T Lab report is fictitious as the M & T Lab report is antitheses to the checking report i.e. LL-1 dated 05.11.2015 in terms of reading because in  the LL-1 the meter reading has been mentioned as not visible. Thus, the demand of Rs. 3,65,053/- vide bill dated 12.12.2016 as arrears is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Hence, the present compliant.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and tendered written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi and not come to the court with clean hands. On merits, learned counsel for OPs stated that at the time of checking on 05.11.2015, the connecting load was found to be 4.396 Kws against the sanctioned load o f3.800 Kws. They further submitted that  the meter reader of the area in question when went to not down the meter reading of the alleged period, found that the meter reading display was not properly readable and as such the meter reader after consulting the complainant being the Retd. JE entered D code against the electricity connection in question in the meter reading book, due to which the complainant was receiving the bills on average basis. It is pertinent to mentioned here that only the display screen of the meter was not properly readable at that time, but the electricity meter was working properly at that time. The Ops never receipt any complaint or any request from any corner to change the alleged defective meter during alleged period with the new meter.  After checking the meter in M & T Lab, the final reading was w shown as 79655 units, whereas, the complainant charged only for 9810 units during the average period of Aug, 2014 to Dec. 2015  and was charged upto 30200 units up to June, 2001 and after deducting both the above said units, a bill  for 39486 was raised and  a bill of 3904 consumed units was raised of new meter after deducting the amount of average units, total amounting to Rs. 3,65,053/- was  raised and the Ops overhaul the account of the complainant as per the final reading of the meter.  So, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-23 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OPs have also tendered affidavits as Annexure R/A & R/B along with documents as annexure R-1 to R-3 and closed their evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.  Admittedly, the meter of the complainant remained effective till 15.04.2014 as per Annexure C-13 bill dated 10.06.2014 for the period 15.03.2014 to 15.05.2014 meter reading shown in this bill 28548 to 30200 units and shown the  consumption reading is 1652 but after that bills has sent to the complainant on the basis of PYM i.e. previous year meter reading or average basis. The Ops has due to this reason the team of the department visited the premises of the complainant and found that status of the meter dead and reading is not visible (NV). The team has sent the meter in question to M & T Lab for checking the status of the meter and new meter was installed in the premises of the complainant.

Perusal of the M & T Lab report i.e. checking report “accuracy of the meter checked on test bench found dead stop. Meter opened for internal examination no tempering observed inside the meter and metering system. Hence, no tempering with the meter”. The meter was checked in the presence of the complainant also and he makes the remarks that not agreed with the reading as meter declared dead. It is mentioned in the report that reading of the meter as 79655.9. After receiving the report from the M & L Lab the department has overhauled the account of the complainant on the basis of reading shown in the meter (79655.9-3200) Bal. units 49656 and average billing is 8/14 to 12/15-9810 units, Bal. units of old meter-39846 units/18-4981/cycle. As per the overhauling report the Ops has deducted the charged amount as per average basis or PYM basis and they have prepared the bill Rs. 3,65,053/-. 

5.                It is not disputed that the meter of the complainant removed from the spot on 15.11.2015 as Annexure C-2 is on the file (i.e. LL1) wherein the meter has been observed as dead stop and reading is not visible i.e. NV. On the other hand, reading has been shown as 79655 in the M & T Lab report Annexure C-3 is itself contradictory when the meter has been found as dead stop how could be possible that the alleged above said reading is to be taken/treated as true even perusal of LL1 (checking report dated 15.11.2015 as Annexure C-2). It is mentioned on this report the meter plate was found washed. The OP cannot raised the bill on the basis of the defective reading only remedy is available with the OP No.2 to overhaul the account of the complainant by taking average of subsequent period for one year reading for the defective period i.e. 15.04.2014 to 15.11.2015 till new meter is installed on the spot. It is also pertinent to mention there that it is the burden duty of the OP to check the meter at the time of taking the reading but they have failed to do above said duty hence, we are no option to quash the bill dated 12.12.2016 for amounting Rs. 3,65,053/-,  same is hereby quashed. Accordingly, complaint is allowed parties are left bear their own cost and in the interest of both the parties, the Ops are directed to overhaul account of the complainant by taking the average of one year reading of the new meter for defective period i.e. 15.05.2014 to 15.11.2015 by way of adjusting the amount received during the defective period and they will issue the fresh bill to the complainant without any surcharge to the complainant within 30 days after receiving of the copy of the order. Thereafter, the complainant is also directed to pay the amount shown in the new bill with next bimonthly, if any. Copy of the order be sent of parties concerned as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

  Announced on:   30.04.2018

                                      

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

    Member                                     Member                        President