Haryana

Ambala

CC/252/2012

RAJINDER SINGH S/O SH NARANJAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

G.S. SANDHU

09 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                                                                     Complaint Case No. :   252 of 2012

                                                         Date of Institution    :   30.08.2012

                                                         Date of Decision      :    09.03.2016

 

Rajinder Singh  son of Sh. Naranjan Singh R/o Shop No.60, Near Manji Sahib Gurudwara, Ambala City.

……Complainant.

 

Versus

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

2.         SDO (OP), Sub Division, (West) Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ambala City.

 

……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. G.S. Sandhu, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Sarvjeet Singh, Adv. counsel for Ops.

ORDER.

                        Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that he  is having an electricity connection bearing No.0101-2434-A (old No.X10-1326) at his shop No.60 near Manji Sahib Gurudwara, Ambala City which is being run by him to earn his livelihood by means of self employment.  It has been further submitted that electric meter installed at his shop was  functioning properly upto the month of July 2011 and thereafter meter started running very fast, so, the complainant moved an application vide No.799 dated 12.08.2011 and in the month of September 2011, complainant received  bill showing consumption of 2042 units amounting to Rs.10,625/- and against the said bill, complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- under protest. In this way, the complainant also received excessive bills for the months of September-November 2011 & January 2012 and thus deposited Rs.1000/- against each bill as part payment.  It has been  further contended that   on the  application of complainant, old meter was removed by the Ops and new meter installed but  the old meter was not got tested  as per law from the lab concerned  and neither informed about the testing of the said meter. It has been further  contended by the complainant that  after installing new meter, future bills were  issued by the Ops as per actual  consumption but arrears were reflected of last bills to the tune of Rs.10631/-. So, the complainant moved another application dated 14.07.2012 but no action was taken to adjust the excess amount of the bills rather in the bill for the month of July 2012, an amount  of Rs.17345/- as arrears has been shown  whereas actual consumption of the complainant is 94 units in the said bill amounting to Rs.535/- to  which complainant is ready to pay but  Ops are not making correction in the bill dated 03.07.20102 in order to harass the complainant. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by the complainant for issuing direction to OPs to delete the amount of arrears of Rs.17345/- from the  Bill dated 03.07.2012 & charge actual consumption and pay compensation etc. as mentioned in prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint and  suppression of material facts etc. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant moved an application  on 12.08.2011 to the OP No.2 qua fast running of the meter and on verification, it was found that meter of the complainant was defective. As such, the defective meter was changed on 03.10.2011, however, at no point of time, complainant applied for checking of the meter from M&T Lab and in the absence of any finding by M&T Lab, meter cannot be presumed to be fast, so the bill issued by Ops in the month of September 2011 & November 2011 cannot be said to be excessive but as per the actual consumption recorded by the meter. It is absolutely incorrect that the excessive bill has been raised for the months of November 2011 to January 2012.  It has been admitted that  in the bill for the month of July 2012, an amount of Rs.17345/- was shown as arrears  whereas the consumption charges were shown to be Rs.535/-. Rest of the contents of complaint have been denied  and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                     In evidence, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C1 to C8 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered two affidavits of Sh. Randhir Singh, SDO UHBVNL as Anenxures RW1/A & RW1/B alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 & R-2 and closed evidence on behalf of OP-Nigam.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very minutely. The main contention of the complainant is that his electricity meter was not working properly, as such, he moved an application to OP No.2 on 12.08.2011 regarding fast running of the meter.  On verification by OP Nigam, the meter, was changed. But the OP after changing the meter sent arrears of Rs.17345/- in the bill of July 2012 which are without any basis & calculations and  thus  smells arbitraries on the part of Ops.

5.                     At the very outset, it is admitted fact on record that defective meter of the complainant  was removed on 03.10.2011 by the Ops. The main grievance of the complainant is that  vide bill  dated 02.09.2011 (Annexure C-3), the Ops raised demand of Rs.10631/- for 2042 units which includes arrears of Rs.10146/- whereas as per Bill dated 04.07.2011 (Annexure C-2), the actual consumption of the  complainant was 71 units having  charges of Rs. 471/- only.  Besides it, complainant has averred in his pleadings as well as in the affidavit  that  except the disputed period, his bimonthly routine electricity bill is of around Rs.500/- only  but due to fast running of  his meter, the bill for the month  of September 2011 came to Rs.10631/- which is very excessive and is a result of  negligence & deficiency in service on the part of Ops.   On the other hand, the contention of Ops that the complainant did not got tested his defective meter from their M&T Lab is not appealable since it was the duty of the Nigam to get  the  defective meter checked from M& T Lab with prior notice to the complainant  and after knowing fastness of the meter,  a correct bill should be sent to the complainant but nothing sort of such kind has been done by the Ops, hence, we  have no hesitation in holding that the OPs have issued inflated bills to the complainant during the disputed period and as such we  are of the confirmed  view that Ops are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant and have committed an unfair trade practice.  Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

1. Not to charge amounts of Rs.17435/- as demanded in Bill No.00926 dated 03.07.2012 (Annexure C-8)

 

2. To overhaul the account of complainant w.e.f 15.06.2011 to 15.06.2012 (on the basis of average consumption of corresponding  months  of the previous year when the meter was functional) without charging  any surcharge thereupon and the amounts so deposited by the complainant during  the said period be adjusted against the electricity  connection of complainant.

 

3. Also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges  as well as compensation for harassment & mental agony etc.

 

                                    The aforesaid directions must be complied with by the Ops within 30 days from the communication of this order otherwise the complainant shall be entitled to get the same enforced under due provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED:09.03.2016                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                                (A.K. SARDANA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

                                                                                                     Sd/-

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)  

                                                                                                              MEMBER