Haryana

Ambala

CC/237/2011

SHREE SHREE 108 - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD - Opp.Party(s)

S.K ARORA

08 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                                                                   Complaint Case No. :    237 of 2011

                                                      Date of Institution    :     01.08.2011

                                                      Date of Decision      :    08.11.2016

Shree Shree 108 Shree Guru Ram Parshad Ji Maharaj Shahpur/Ambala Wale Ka Sanyas Ashram (Regd.), House No.5153/3, Chowk Darzian, Ambala City (Haryana) through its Manager Narayan Dass son of Sh. Prabhu Ram.

……Complainant.

                                                             Versus

1.         Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sector, Panchkula, through its Managing Director.

2.         Sub Divisional Officer ( Op.) East near Gurudwara Badshahi Bagh, Ambala City.  

……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

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

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. S.K. Arora, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Sarvjeet Singh, Adv. counsel for Ops.

ORDER.

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is having an electricity connection at the abovesaid premises bearing account no.CT-12-1683-W (old a/c no.A3-786). It has been submitted that consumer is a religious institution /Ashram in the name of complainant and paying electricity bills regularly. Further it has been submitted that  as per electricity bill dated 15.06.2010, the electricity meter  was  shown dead stop with old reading shown as 3980 and bill was issued on average basis  and the same was also paid by the complainant.  So, complainant informed Op No.2 in written qua stoppage of electricity meter on 28.06.2010 and the JE of OP Nigam found as ‘Reading-Not visible’ & Working- Dead Stop’. Thereafter, bills dated 17.08.2010, 18.10.2010, 18.12.2010 & 15.02.2011 were issued on average/previous year/minimum basis and the same were also paid by the complainant. It has been submitted that on 24.01.2011, old electricity meter was removed and a new electricity meter  was installed showing old reading as 2 units.  It has been alleged that the said electric meter was not packed and sealed in the presence of complainant and no signature of the complainant were obtained while removing the meter nor the meter was checked in his presence. As per complainant, he was surprised to see that the electricity bill dated 17.04.2011 showing reading old 2 and new 274 but showing the units consumed as 4876 instead of 272 units. So, again complainant approached the Op No.2 for correcting the electricity bill vide application dated 04.06.2011 but the Op no.2 did not reply the said application and refused to accept the current electricity bill of  new meter showing actual meter reading 272 units consumed  and insisted upon the payment of whole bill showing the illegal and unlawful additional units 4604 as per MCO dated 16.11.2010 amounting to Rs.28005/-. As such, the Op has adopted unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service with the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint.  It has been submitted that the meter  in question was working properly but the Meter Reader wrongly reported the reading to be as 3980 units, consequently, for the months of June, August, October, December 2010 and for the month of February 2011by showing the meter as  dead,  bills were raised on average basis. Further it has been submitted that complainant applied for change of meter by moving  application  and it was changed  vide MCO No.99/113 dated 16.11.2010 and the removed meter  was working properly at the time of change and was showing reading as 10998 units. So, during the above stated months, the complainant consumed 7018 units (10998-3980) and the complainant was charged for 2414 units by raising bills on average basis. So, complainant was charged for remaining 4604 units (7018-2414 units) in the bill dated 17.04.2011. The complainant was charged for electricity, he actually consumed. Hence, the Ops are not fault  in any manner and prayed for  dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-15 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered affidavit Anenxure RX alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 & R-2 and closed evidence.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. The case of the complainant is that bill dated 15.06.2010 (Annexure C-7) was issued by the Ops to him on average basis showing  old units as 3980, so complainant moved an application dated 28.06.2010 (Annexure C-1) to OP and they found that Reading to the meter was not visible and working of the meter was Dead Stop. Thereafter, some bills were sent to the complainant on average basis and ultimately meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure R-1) and bill dated 17.04.2011 issued to the complainant showing  old reading as 2 and new as 274  after installing new meter vide MCO dated 16.11.2011 but as per complainant  in the said bill arrears of Rs.25449/- have been imposed without any basis and illegally.  On the other hand,  counsel for OP has urged that the meter in question  was working properly but the Meter Reader wrongly reported the reading as 3980 units and later on bills were raised on average basis.  But in actual the complainant consumed 7018 units whereas he was charged  for 2414 units by raising bill on average basis and thus the complainant was charged less for 4604 units and  as such, the disputed bill is  correct one having no illegality.  Perusal of document MCO dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure R-1) reveals that when the old meter was removed, the box of the meter was defective and reading was not shown from MCB whereas the Meter was OK and it was having reading as 10998 but the complainant was charged  only for 3980 units on average basis to the complainant  and 2414 units  were also charged for the months from 06/10 to 02/11 and after deducing the said units, 4604 units were left to be charged from the complainant.

5.                     After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we have come to the conclusion that as per own admission of Ops, they have wrongly sent the bill dated 15.06.2010 to the complainant on average basis. The dispute in the present complaint arise when  bill dated 17.04.2011 issued by the Ops to the complainant showing old units as 2 & new as 274 and units consumed have been shown as 4876 whereas status of meter has been shown as OK and bill basis is AMR (actual meter reading). Perusal of  bills Annexure C-7  reveals that  prior to sending of bills to the complainant on average basis, the units consumed by complainant was around 250 units.  When the meter is OK, the bill should be sent on actual meter reading basis, so it is patent mistake on the part of Ops to show the units consumed as 4876 whereas it should be as 272 and thereby the bill dated 17.04.2011 and the mistake has been rectified in the next bill dated 03.06.2011 (Annexure C-12) by showing old reading as 274 and new as 435 thereby consumption of only 161 units but the arrears   of Rs.26191/-  has been shown. Perusal of bills annexed with the complaint reveals that average of the units consumed by complainant have been taken by the Ops fluctuating upto 600 units bimonthly which shows illegality in the bill by OP as well as  negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and directed the Ops to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)        To overhaul the electricity account in question for the period from 06/2010 to 02/2011 on the basis of average consumption  of new meter which installed vide MCO no.99 dated 16.11.2010.

(ii)       To pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses for dragging the complainant in unwarranted litigation.

 

                             Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.                                                   

ANNOUNCED:08/11/2016                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                                 (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT    

                                                                                         Sd/-

        (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                            MEMBER