Haryana

Ambala

CC/290/2019

Lt. Col KBS - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uhbvnl Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Anu Sareen

02 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.         :    290 of 2019

                                                          Date of Institution           :     11.09.2019

                                                          Date of decision     :     02.05.2022.

 

Lt. Col KBS Khurana son of MAJ. BIS Khurana, aged about 60 years, resident of H.No.27, Lane No.12, Sector-D, Defence Colony, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

 

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through Executive Engineer, Operation Division UHBVN, Near Water Works, Cross Road No.12, Ambala Cantt.
2. S.D.O Operation, Sub-Division UHBVN, Babyal, Ambala Cantt.

 

….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Ms. Anu Sareen, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri C.S.Bindra, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To recall the demand of Rs.1,07,226/- and charge the complainant, for the period from 30.04.2019 to 30.06.2019, on the basis of consumption made by him during the corresponding period of previous year i.e. 30.04.2018 to 30.06.2018.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.22,000/-, as litigation expenses.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

                                    

2.       The brief facts of the case are that while complainant was a serving army officer, he obtained three phase electricity connection of Domestic Supply Category with sanctioned load of 5.0 KW, vide Account No.A14-YO16-4768 from the OPs, i.e 6-7 years ago. The said electricity connection was installed at the residential address of the complainant and meter was installed outside the boundary wall of his residence on the electricity pole. All the bills pertaining to above mentioned account stands paid regularly by the complainant till 15.06.2019. On 14.08.2019, the meter reader from the office of OP No.2, arrived at his residence to deliver the bill, who brought to the notice of the complainant that consumption of the electricity for the period from 30.04.2019 to 30.06.2019, i.e of two months, was about of 13931 units.  Complainant got shocked to hear about that and thereafter realized that the meter might have jumped.  Wife of the complainant made an oral representation to the OP No.2, on the very next day and the OP No.2 deputed some Assistant Line-man to check the meter reading. On 16.08.2019, meter was checked and in the report meter reading was shown as 84330 units, as on 16.08.2019, whereas meter reading in the bill was shown 84319 units, as on 30.06.2019. It clearly depicts that only 11 units were consumed in one and a half month, which is not possible. Complainant received electricity bill dated 30.07.2019, for a sum of Rs.1,07,226/-, for the period from 30.04.2019 to 30.06.2019, from the OPs, which is highly inflated and is certainly not as per the actual consumption of electricity by the complainant. Consumption of 13931 units, shown in the said bill, for the period from 30.06.2019 to 30.08.2019 is incorrect, fictitious and not as per actual consumption of electricity by the complainant, during the said period. On the receipt of the bill dated 30.07.2019, wife of the complainant met OP No.2 and requested him to correct the bill considering the previous consumption pattern, but OP No.2 straight way refused to correct the bill and threatened to disconnect the electricity supply, in case the bill amount was not deposited by the complainant. The said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, locus standi, not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts etc. On merits, it is stated that answering OPs has rightly issued the bill dated 30.07.2019 and the complainant is liable to pay the same. The bill for the period from 30.04.2019 to 30.06.2019 was issued on the actual consumption of electricity by the complainant during the period of peak summer season, and the answering OPs rightly issued the bill dated 30.07.2019. If complainant feels that the meter is not working properly then he is at liberty to get the meter checked from the M& T Lab or by installing parallel meter, by depositing the requisite fee.  Rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint filed by the complainant against them with heavy costs.

4.                Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Shri Karan Jangra posted as SDO Sub Division Babyal, Ambala Cantt as Annexure OPA along with documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file and also gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant.

6.           The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the OPs issued the bill dated 30.07.2019, Annexure C-1, of huge amount of Rs.1,07,226/-, for consumption of 13931 units, for the period from 30.04.2019 to 30.06.2019. With the sanctioned load of 5KWH, within a span of two months, it is not possible to consume 13931 units, even if complainant uses the electricity for 24X7. Consumption of 13931 units, is due to the jumping of the meter. Complainant vide letter dated 16.08.2019, Annexure C-2, requested the OPs, for checking of the meter. OPs instead of getting checked the meter from M& T Lab, had sent their official for checking of the reading of the meter, installed on a pole outside his house. Since, the OPs have not adopted the proper procedure for checking of the meter in question, therefore, no reliance can be placed on site verification report dated 16.08.2019, to arrive at a conclusion that the impugned meter was OK or faulty. OPs issued the bill dated 30.07.2019, in violation of Sales Circular No.62/2013.

7.            On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs has argued that all the allegations levelled by the complainant are false. On filing of the application by the complainant, the meter was duly checked at the site by the official of the OP and it was found OK. If the complainant was not satisfied with the site verification report, then he could have made the representation to the concerned SDO for checking of the meter in M & T Lab, by depositing the requisite fee for testing of the meter, but he did not do so. The bill dated 30.07.2019, of Rs.1,07,226/-, was raised on the basis of the actual consumption of the electricity by the complainant.

8.           It may be stated here that when the complaint with regard to defective meter was lodged by the complainant, it was required of the OPs, to send it to the M& T Lab for testing, however, there is nothing on record that any such exercise was conducted by the OPs. Merely by checking the meter installed outside the premises of the complainant, without getting the meter tested from the M & T Lab, by sending it in a sealed cover, it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion that the meter was working OK or not. Only technical expert after examining/testing the meter thoroughly could have come to a definite conclusion as to how such a huge number of i.e 13931 units, could have been consumed by the complainant, within the span of two months, just from a meter having 5KWH of load. Moreover, from the perusal of the bills annexed by the complainant as Annexure C-3 to C-7, it is evident that the complainant had consumed maximum 3384 units of electricity. The OPs neither in the written version mentioned nor explained the reason of all of a sudden increase in the consumption of electricity during the period of 30.04.2019 to 30.06.2019. It is not the case of the OPs that electricity connection during the above said period was used for commercial purpose or consumption of electricity increased due to some important function in the house of the complainant. Even, the plea of the complainant that the sudden increase in the consumption of electricity for the period from 30.04.2019 to 30.06.2019, was due to jumping of meter, cannot be ignored because jumping of meter can happen due to overload of electricity transformers and electricity lines, fluctuation of electricity voltage or due to some foul play committed by the consumer. There is no complaint against the complainant regarding misuse of electricity.  In any case, if jumping of electricity meter takes place due to overloading or fluctuation of voltage, it cannot be considered as a fault of the consumer. Since the consumption of electricity during the period from 30.04.2019 to 30.06.2019, was many more times than the consumption of electricity shown in the bills, Annexure C-3 to C-7, therefore, in the absence of test report of M& T Lab, the site verification report cannot be treated as a concrete evidence and beyond doubt. When the lapse is on the part of the OPs then complainant cannot be burdened to pay the bill amount claimed vide bill dated 30.07.2019. In the case of Jagdeep Rana Vs. UHBVNL decided on 26.03.2018, wherein the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana has held that in case the domestic electric meter is found defective, the electricity bill be prepared as per instruction given in the Sales Circular No.61/2013. In rebuttal to the sale circular No.61/2013, nothing has been produced by the OPs. In Clause No.1, of the sales Circular No.61/2013, issued on December 18th, 2013 by Chief General Manager/Commercial, UHBVN, Panchkula, it is mentioned that in case the domestic electricity meter is found defective, sticky, dead stop, burnt, faulty or inoperative, premises locked, the electricity bill be prepared in the following manner:-

1. On the basis of the consumption recorded during the corresponding period of the previous year when the meter was functional and recording correctly.
2. In case the same is not available, then on the basis of average consumption of the past six months immediately preceding the date of the meter being found/reported defective.
3. If period of installation of meter is less than six months, then the consumer shall be billed on the basis of average consumption of the period from the date of installation of the meter to the date of the meter being found/reported defective.
4. In case no previous correct consumption date is available, owing to new connection or otherwise, the consumer shall be billed (provisionally) for the units as mentioned in the table below.

             In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that OPs shall withdraw the bill dated 30.07.2019 and issue a fresh/amended bill as per Clause 1(a) of the Sales Circular No.61/2013, without charging any surcharge, penalty etc. on account of non-payment of above-mentioned bill. OPs shall also compensate the complainant for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

             In view of the aforesaid discussions, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the bill dated 30.07.2019 and issue a fresh/amended bill as per Clause 1(a) of the Sales Circular No.61/2013, without charging any surcharge, penalty etc. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.3,000/-, to the complainant, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him and also pay Rs.2,000/-, as litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to comply with the order within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

      Announced on :02.05.2022.

 

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)        (Ruby Sharma)                   (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                             Member                            President

 

 

Present:       Shri R.K. Jindal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Sachin Goel, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

 

 

Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint has been allowed. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.

Announced on: 02.05.2022.

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member                       President