Haryana

Ambala

CC/230/2019

Tilak Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sarvjeet Singh

14 Sep 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA

 

                                                                    Complaint Case No.:230 of 2019                                                              

                                                                    Date of Institution: 30.07.2019                                                                 

                                                                   Date of Decision:   14.09.2021.

Tilak Raj son of Sh. Chanan Raj Verma, aged about 78 years, resident of H.No. 896-A, Malgodam Road, Ambala City.

                                                                             ……..Complainant.

Versus

1.       Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through Executive Engineer, Operation Division UHBVN, Ambala City, Near Vita Milk Plant, Ambala City.

2.       SDO Operation, Sub Division UHBVN, West, Ambala City, Ghel Road, Near Shamshanghat, Ambala City.

                                                                             ……..Opposite parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Saravjeet Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri P.K.Bansal, 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.1,47,503/- and charge the complainant for the period from 24.12.2018 to 10.05.2019 on the basis of consumption made by him during the corresponding period of previous year i.e. 24.12.2017 to 10.05.2018.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.
382.              

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

 

2. Consumption data of electricity by the complainant from December, 2016 to December,2018, which is as under:-

Billing Month	Consumption
December, 2016	239 Units
February, 2017	277 Units
April, 2017	225 Units
June, 2017	274 Units
August, 2017	588 Units
October, 2017	359 Units
January, 2018	470 Units
March, 2018	192 Units
April, 2018	205 Units
June, 2018	441 Units
August, 2018	303 Units
October,2018	242 Units
December,2018	185 Units

 

All the bills pertaining to consumption stands paid by the complainant. On 08.03.2019, meter reader from the office of OP no.2 arrived at the residence of the complainant to record the reading and he brought it to the notice of the complainant that he would be billed for the consumption of about 18000 units as the meter shows the consumption of about 18000 units during the span of previous two months.  He was shocked to hear the consumption of 18000 units during the span of two months as the same was highly unlikely.  Complainant realized that the meter installed against the above mentioned electricity connection was jumping the units and on the next day, the son of the complainant made oral representation before OP no.2 to this effect. On 21.03.2019, the meter was replaced with the new one. A notice  was issued to the complainant to be present in the M& T Lab on 08.04.2019, for the checking of the meter. As the complainant is paralytic and he authorized his wife Smt. Saroj Verma to be present for the checking of the meter in M & T Lab. On 08.04.2019, the meter was not checked in the presence of the wife of the complainant but the officials of the OPs present there, obtained her signatures on blank form. After checking, wife of the complainant was not informed about the result and even copy of the report was not supplied to her by the officials of the Ops.­­­ Complainant received a bill dated 27.08.2019 from the OPs, for the period from 24.12.2018 to 27.06.2019 for a sum of Rs.1,47,503/- which is highly inflated and not as per the actual consumption.  In bill dated 27.06.2019, the consumption period was bifurcated for the period from 24.12.2018 to 10.05.2019. The consumption for the period from 10.05.2019 to 27.06.2019, has been shown as 542 units, which is wrong as the said consumption has been made from 21.03.2019 i.e. from the date on which new meter was installed and not from 10.05.2019 to 27.06.2019.  In the said bill the consumption has been shown as 18307 units, which is incorrect and not as per the actual consumption of electricity. On receipt of the above said bill, the son of the complainant met with OP no.2 and requested to correct the electricity bill but OP No. 2­­­ refused to do so.  The above facts clearly show that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of Ops and they have also indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.

3.                 Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability. On merits, it is stated that complainant made a complaint to the OPs regarding fast moving of his electricity meter. On his request, J.E. of the Department visited the premises of the complainant and on checking the meter found that meter was running fast, packed the meter in a box for checking of accuracy in M&T Lab but meter block was loose.  Thereafter the electricity meter was sent to M&T Lab Dhulkot, for its checking with the consent of the complainant.  No tempering was found inside the meter and complainant was aware about all these facts but was not satisfied with M&T Lab Report that the meter was in OK condition.  Thereafter, meter reading was accumulated and OPs sent bill of Rs.1,47,503/- to the complainant but inspite of paying the electricity bill, he has filed the present complaint. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                 The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure C-A along with documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Ms. Seema, SDO M&T Lab Dhulkot, Ambala and Ms. Urvashi, SDO West UHBVNL (West), Ambala City as Annexure OP-A and OP-B respectively 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.

6.                 The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that as the sanctioned load is of 2.00 KWH and within a span of four months, it is not possible to consume 18307 units, even if complainant uses the electricity for 24X7. Consumption of 18307 units, is due to the jumping of the meter, which got confirmed at the time of physical inspection of the meter in question by the J.E. of the OPs, as is evident from checking report Annexure C-1.  He also contended that no doubt wife of the complainant was present in the M&T Lab but meter was not checked in her presence and the officials of the OPs forcibly obtained her signature on the blank performa. He further contended that during the checking of the meter in question videography was not done by the OPs. As such, no reliance can be placed on the report of the M & T Lab, to arrive at a conclusion that the impugned meter was OK or faulty, OPs have issued the bill dated  27.06.2019, 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 and in the absence of any documentary proof are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The testing of the meter in question was done in the M & T lab, by adopting the proper procedure. In case, the complainant was not satisfied with the report of the M & T Lab, then as per Instruction No.U-2/2017, he could have made the representation to the concerned SDO within 10 days from date of testing of the meter in M & T Lab and deposit facilitation charges of Rs.1,000/- for retesting of the meter in question from the approved Lab.

8.                 The plea of the complainant is that reading of consumption of 18307 units, is due to jumping of the meter, which got confirmed at the time of physical inspection of the meter in question by the JE of the OPs, as is evident from checking report Annexure C-1. Whereas the stand of the Ops is that from the checking report of the M & T Lab, Annexure C-2, it is quite clear that the meter in question was OK. It is an admitted fact that prior to issuance of electricity bill dated 27.06.2019, Annexure C-3, complainant used to make the payment of the electricity bills regularly.  Prior to issuance of electricity bill dated 27.06.2019, complainant received electricity bill dated 17.01.2018, Annexure C-1 for the period from 18.10.2017 to 17.01.2018, showing consumption of electricity of 303 units and bill dated 31.08.2018, Annexure C-2, for the period from 25.06.2018 to 21.08.2018, showing consumption of electricity of 470 units. In para No.2 of the complaint, it is mentioned that complainant consumed maximum of 588 units of electricity bimonthly, from December 2016 to December 2018. This fact has not been controverted by the Ops. It is neither the case of the complainant nor of the OPs that the electricity bills were issued on average consumption basis. 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 24.12.2018 to 10.05.2019. The OPs have also not taken the plea that it happened due to mistake on the part of the meter reader or any official of the OPs. It is also not the plea of the OPs that the bill dated 17.01.2018 Annexure C-1 and bill dated 31.08.2018, C-2 were issued without noting consumption of electricity by the meter reader. The Ops have also not taken plea that all it happened on account of collusion of the meter reader or any other staff of the UHBVNL with the complainant.

9.                 No doubt, M&T Lab did not find the meter in question to be Faulty but the videography of the testing of the meter has not been produced. In the absence of the videography of the testing, the report dated 08.04.2019 Annexure OP2, given by the M&T Lab, cannot be treated as a concrete evidence and beyond doubt. In the electricity bill dated 27.06.2019 Annexure C-3, for period from 24.12.2018 to 27.06.2019, consumption of electricity in terms of units and payment of amount has been shown many more times than the average consumption shown in the bimonthly bills of the previous two years. No explanation whatsoever has been given either by the Ops or the M&T Lab. The OPs could not make it clear how all of a sudden there was such a big jump in the consumption of the electricity for the period from 24.12.2018 to 10.05.2019 i.e. within the span of four months. It is not the version of the OPs that this electric connection during the above said period was used for commercial purpose or consumption of electricity increased due to some important functions like marriage etc. in the house or that in any nearby house and electricity was used for construction work from this electricity connection.

10.                It may be stated here that sometimes all of a sudden increase of consumption of electricity is shown in the electricity meter due to jumping of the electricity meter. Jumping of the electricity meter may be due to certain reasons like overloading of the electricity transformers and electricity lines, fluctuation of electricity voltage or due to some foul play committed by consumer himself by using magnetic devices etc or in connivance with the officials/officers of the UHBVNL. The main reason behind showing so much consumption of electricity appears to be jumping of the electricity meter. If the jumping of the electricity meter takes place due to overloading or fluctuation in the voltage, it cannot be considered as a fault of the consumer.  As shown in the electricity bill Annexure C-3, there was sudden rise in the consumption of the electricity in the old meter for the period from 24.12.2018 to 10.05.2019. In such a situation the complainant cannot be burdened to pay the bill amount claimed in the electricity bill dated 27.06.2019, Annexure C-3 for the period from 24.12.2018 to 27.06.2019.

11.                In this situation, only option before us is to give findings that all it happened due to all of a sudden jumping of the electricity meter. It is not out of place to mention here that the OPs could not give any good and solid reason of issuance of the electricity bill dated 27.06.2019, Annexure C-3, mentioning huge amount of Rs. 1,45,626.30/-. As such, we are of the opinion that OPs shall withdraw the electricity bill dated 27.06.2019 and issue the fresh bill for the period from 24.12.2018 to 10.05.2019, as per Clause 1(a) of the sales circular No.U-61/2013 issued on December 18th, 2013 by Chief General Manager/Commercial, UHBVN, Panchkula, wherein 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 rebuttal to the said sale circular No.61/2013, nothing has been produced by the OPs. It is made clear that OPs shall issue the fresh bill without charging any surcharge, penalty etc., on account of the non-payment of the above mentioned bill. The OPs shall also compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

12.                  In view of the aforesaid discussions, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the bill dated 27.06.2019 and issue a fresh 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/- as compensation and also to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to comply with the order within the period of 45 days. Certified copy of this 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: 14.09.2021.

 

 

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

              Member                                  Member             President