Haryana

Ambala

CC/36/2017

Smt Komal - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P.S. Sharma

01 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

       Complaint Case No. :    36 of 2017

       Date of Institution    :     30.01.2017

        Date of Decision      :      01.05.2018

 

Smt.Komal aged 43 years wife of Manish Kumar r/o H.No.4650 Sarafa Bazar, Ambala Cantt.

……Complainant.

Versus

 

1.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through Executive Engineer, Operation Division UHBVN, Ambala Cantt.

2.The Sub Divisional Officer, Operation, Sub-Division No.1, UHBVN, 12 Cross Road, Ambala Cantt.

……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. P.S.Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. Vivek Sachdeva, Adv. counsel for Ops.

 

ORDER

 

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is using electricity through domestic electricity connection bearing account No.9129900000/ OD-123802 with sanctioned load of 8KW and is paying the electricity bills regularly. In the last week of May, 2016, the meter reader of OP No.2 disclosed that the meter is defective and it requires replacement. Thereafter the husband of the complainant deposited the necessary charges of Rs.1437/- qua replacement of meter vide receipt dated 25.11.2016.  The officials of Op No.2 visited the complainant to replace the meter and while replacing the same made the report Premises checked in the presence of Sh.Manish Kumar s/o Bhulla Nath removed meter packed in card-Board box duly sign of consumer for sending to M&T Lab Dhulkot for complete investigation of meter. Supply restored by new electric meter. Total load was noted and assessed as 7.696 KW. The complainant was called in M&T lab Dhulkot for testing of meter and on checking the meter was found intact except some internal defect and the same was found as dead stop on account of said defect. It was told to the husband of the complainant that the defect is not due to complainant rather the same is internal mechanical defect. On 24.08.2016 the complainant received a letter No.1039 intimating her about overhauling the account and about charging of Rs.1,64,313/- illegally and wrongly. Since there was no fault of the complainant as the meter was defective due to its internal defect therefore, the OPs were to overhaul the account for the defective period on the basis of average consumption of electricity for six months recorded by new meter after installation on 11.06.2016 but the OPs had issued a bill on 12.01.2017 payable on or before 30.01.2017 wherein an amount of Rs.1,67,463/- has been debited as sundry charges. Thereafter, the husband of the complainant visited Op No.2 and requested not to charge the bill to the tune of Rs.1,67,463/- and to overhaul the account for the defective period i.e. for a period of maximum 6 months on the average basis of consumption of 6 months recorded by new meter after installation. The act and conduct of the OPs in demanding Rs.1,67,463/-  as sundry charges vide bill dated 12.01.2017 is wrong, null and void and against the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was given to her before issuance of said bill. Due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C13.

2.                     On notice OPs appeared and filed their joint reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, concealment of material facts and maintainability etc. have been taken. The meter of the complainant was dead due to over load which was pointed out during checking report LL-1 No.30/285 dated 11.06.2016 and the same was confirmed in M&T lab Dhulkot when the meter was internally examined vide endst.No.Ch-602 dated 18.07.2016. The checking was conducted in the presence of representative of the complainant and she was informed about overhauled account to the tune of Rs.1,64,313/- to be paid within 7 days and time was also given to her to file objections, if any, but she did not file any objection. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as the meter was found dead during checking in the presence of representative of the complainant. The complainant was found using electricity with unauthorized load as found during checking LL-1 No.30/285.  During checking of the meter the status of the seals were found 2 Nos. firm metallic seals bearing impression “AVON” with large on both sides found intact and 2 M&T lab polycarbonate seals bearing Sr.No.B-530797 and B-530798 found intact”. During internal examination, it was further observed “(a) Accuracy of the meter checked on the test bench through dial test and found working dead stop. (b) Meter opened for internal examination during checking of meter, no tampering was observed within the metering system of the meter. Meter working dead stop due to some internal defect”.  The complainant had deposited the alleged amount on 25.11.2016 after more than 5 months of checking of meter by the OPs.  The total load on the spot during checking was found to be 7.696 KW and it was righty assessed. An amount of Rs.1,64, 313/- has rightly been charged from the complainant and there is no illegality  in the bill in question. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Other contentions 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 R5.

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

5.                     As per LL1 report Annexure R1, the premises of the complainant was checked in the presence of husband of the complainant and the meter of the complainant was removed being its defective and reading at that time was shown as 44769 and the meter was sent to L&T lab for testing. The accuracy of the meter was checked in the presence of the husband of the complainant. As per Annexure R2 the meter was found working as dead stop. It is also mentioned in this report that the meter working dead stop was found due to some internal defect and no tempering was found.  New meter was installed on 11.06.2016.  We have also summoned the relevant record such as consumption since April, 2014 to March, 2018. We observed that meter reading was shown very low from the months of November 2015 to June, 2016 and even in the month of March, 2016 no consumption has been recorded by the meter which shows that from November, 2015 to June, 2016 the meter remained defective as in the previous months the reading has been shown in higher side.  If we separate the period from November, 2015 to June 2016 then it is very much clear that the consumption recorded by the meter old/new was justified keeping in view the sanctioned load of 8 KW.  We have gone through the calculation sheet summoned at the time of arguments to decide the matter in controversy regarding showing of reading as 44769 in the checking report. Admittedly, the meter in question was defective after September, 2015 and at that time reading was 25047 and thereafter when the meter was checked at the spot on 11.06.2016 as well as at the time of testing of meter the reading shown as 44769 and the difference comes 44769-25047 i.e. 19722 and if we divided the said units by number of months from November 2015 to June 2016 then per month unit comes to 2191 units per month which is higher than the reading shown in the calculation sheet for the consumption period. We have calculated the reading from April, 2014 to March 2018 but whole of the consumption less than the units shown as 44769 which shows that the OPs have failed to prove on the case file as to on which formula they have calculated the units.

6.                                 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 Ops are found deficient in providing services to her because overhauling the meter of the complainant for the defective period i.e. from November, 2015 to June, 2016 was to be done keeping in view the units recorded by the new installed meter. Hence, we allow the present complaint and quashed the notice dated 24.08.2016/electricity bill Annexure R3/C8 for the period from November, 2015 to June 2016, when the new meter was installed, as illegal and null & void. In the interest of justice the OPs are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant for the period from November 2015 to June, 2016 on the basis of consumption recorded by new meter for the period of six months of the preceding year. The amount deposited by the complainant as part payment be adjusted in the account of the complainant. OPs are directed to comply with the order within 30 days after receiving of the copy of this order. 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: 01.05.2018                                              

 

 

 

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

     MEMBER                         MEMBER                              PRESIDENT