Haryana

Ambala

CC/358/2016

Ram Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

C.K. Singhal

06 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

       Complaint Case No. :    358 of 2016

                   Date of Institution    :    16.09.2016.

                   Date of Decision      :     06.04.2018.

 

Ram Pal aged about 55 years son of Shri Banwari Lal, resident of village Sabga, Tehsil  Barara District Ambala.

……Complainant.

Versus

 

1.         Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2.         Sub Divisional Officer (Op), UHBVN Ltd. Sub Division, Kesri District Ambala.

……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:          Sh.C.K.Singhall, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh.Arun Singh Nehra, Adv. counsel for Ops.

 

ORDER

 

 

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is having electricity connection No.NG-10-1621-F and No.1623 (Old) with new No.KD-25-1819-W in his premises at village Sabga Tehsil Barara. The Op No.2 had changed the old meter and installed a new meter in the month of February 2014. The old meter was in OK condition and the complainant had been paying the electricity bills regularly.  After installation of new meter the OPs had sent a first bill to the tune of Rs.87665/- by showing consumed units as 10796 wrongly and illegally because earlier the bills were received within the range of Rs.200/- to Rs.500/- because there was load of 1.000 WT. The electricity was being used for domestic purpose only.  He moved an application dated 17.04.2015 to the Op No.2 for correcting the said bill as well as for sending the bill as per consumed units but the Ops threatened to disconnect the electricity supply in case the bill has not been paid.  The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C7.

2.                     On notice Ops appeared and filed their joint reply wherein it has been submitted that on 09.10.2013 the official of the OPs had visited the premises of the complainant and found that electricity meter was totally burnt and meter reading was also not visible, therefore, the meter was changed vide MCO book No.0066 in Sr. No.052 on dated 25.12.2013 vide MCO dated 24.10.2013. At the time of removing the burnt meter the reading was 11499 and the new meter was having reading 000001. In the month of November, 2013 energy bill was issued to the complainant (old reading 1072 and new reading 1146) for total unit as 221 with amount of Rs.811/- and after due date Rs.835/-. Again next bill in regular process was issued for the month of January 2014 (old reading 1146 and new reading 67) for total units 221 with amount of Rs.1144/- and after due was 1178. In the month of March, 2014 new bill was issued to the complainant after MCO. The Nigam adjusted the previous consumptions units pending against the complainant in first new bill such as 11499-1146= 10353+443= 10796. The Nigam had deducted 1146 units. Again second new bill was issued to the complainant for the month of May, 2014 for Rs.85135/- and after due date Rs.87665/- against the units as 440. The Nigam issued the regular bill to the complainant against consumption and still the outstanding amount of the complainant in the month of March, 2017 was Rs.1,18,453/- and after due date was Rs.1,21,961/-. The old meter was in OK condition and Totally burnt and meter reading was not visible.  Other contentions of the complainant have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the OPs have tendered affidavit Annexure RA and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R4.

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

4.                     The grievance of the complainant is that the bill Annexure C1 issued by the complainant wrongly and illegally despite the fact that the meter was defective being totally burnt and he challenged the bill Annexure C2 in which it has been shown the reading in March 2014 i.e. 10796 although the reading was not more than 74 consumed units so this reading is fictitious and he is not liable to pay the amount of Rs.87655/- shown as sundry charges and the same may kindly be quashed.

                        On the other hand, the OPs have come with the plea that the meter  was totally burnt and its reading was also not visible, therefore, the meter was changed vide MCO book No.0066 in Sr. No.052 on dated 25.12.2013 vide MCO dated 24.10.2013. At the time of removing the burnt meter the reading was seen 11499 – 1146 = 10353 and the new meter was having reading 000001 as per statement of account Annexure R4. In the month of November, 2013 energy bill was issued to the complainant (old reading 1072 and new reading 1146) for total unit as 221 with amount of Rs.811/- and after due date Rs.835/-. Again next bill in regular process was issued for the month of January 2014 (old reading 1146 and new reading 67) for total units 221 with amount of Rs.1144/- and after due was 1178. In the month of March, 2014 new bill was issued to the complainant after MCO. The Nigam adjusted the previous consumptions units pending against the complainant in first new bill such as 11499 - 1146= 10353+ 443= 10796. The Nigam had deducted 1146 units and again second new bill was issued to the complainant for the month of May, 2014 for Rs.85135/- and after due date Rs.87665/- against the units as 440 (Annexure C2). The Nigam issued the regular bill to the complainant against consumption and still the outstanding amount of the complainant in the month of March, 2017 was Rs.1,18,453/- and after due date was Rs.1,21,961/-. The bill dated 06.05.2014 has been issued as per actual consumption and the complainant is bound to pay the same.

                                    Undisputedly the complainant had moved an application to the OPs qua excessive bill as well as for correcting the same (Annexure C5). The meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO Annexure R3 on dated 25.12.2013 and the reason for changing the meter in Annexure R3 has been mentioned as BURNT. The OPs in their reply on one hand have submitted that the meter was totally burnt and the reading was not visible but it is strange as to how they have come to the conclusion that at the time of removing the meter consumed units have been shown as 11499. Another strange factor which this Forum has noticed that the meter was changed in the month December, 2013 but it started the reading from 1 in the month of March, 2014 despite the fact that a bill for the month of January, 2014 was issued by the OPs by showing the consumed units as 74. The act and conduct of the OPs appears to be not plausible because in the ledger Annexure R4 no entry qua consuming of units in thousands except one entry 10796 units have been mentioned and the Ops have failed to produce on the case file any evidence to show that as to how an amount of Rs.64560/- was recovered from the complainant on account of 10796 units. The ledger Annexure R4 appears to be prepared in order to fill the lacuna as well as to hide out the wrongs done on behalf of the department; therefore, the plea of the Ops that the bill Annexure C1 was sent to the complainant on actual consumption basis is rejected. During the proceedings of this complaint the Ops were directed to produce the account statement of the complainant for the year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 but despite directions the Ops did bother to produce the same before this Forum.  The electricity department is a government institute but it appears that the OPs have taken the matter in a casual manner without taking-care the interest of the consumer and such like behavior from government institute is not acceptable.

5.                     In view of the above factual position, we allow the present complaint and quashed the bill Annexure C1. In the interest of justice the OPs are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant i.e. March 2013 to February  2014 , be overhauled on the basis of consumption recorded by new meter during the period from March 2014 to February 2015. The amount deposited by the complainant as part payment, if any, be adjusted in the account of the complainant. 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: 06.04.2018                                               (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

 

(ANAMIKA GUPTA)                                               (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

     MEMBER                                                             MEMBER