Haryana

Ambala

CC/275/2022

Gurnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	275 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	13.07.2022
Date of decision	:	10.06.2024

GURNAM SINGH S/o Sh. Ram Parshad, Resident of # 33R, Model Town, Ambala City Tehsil-Ambala City, Distt-Ambala (Haryana).

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. UTTER Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (through SDO, Model Town), Ambala City,- Distt-Ambala.
2. UTTER Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (through Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle, Ambala City).
3. UTTER Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (through The Chief Engineer (OP) Shakti Bhawan - Sector-6, Panchkula) (Haryana)

                                                                              ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:-     Shri Dashrath Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Dharam Chand Bhatti, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (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 correct the bill dated 17.06.2022 and raise fresh bill as per actual consumption or change the new defective meter.
2. Not to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant
3. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and harassment alongwith interest @18% p.a.OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a consumer of electricity department as the electricity is being provided to him by the OPs vide account No.1673630000 against sanctioned load of 5 KW and he has been regular in paying charges for the electricity being used by him. However, the OPs issued bill dated 17.6.2022 in which the old reading for the period from 27.03.2022 to 02.05.2022 was mentioned as 250 units i.e. for 36 days, whereas, at the same time, it was also shown in the said bill that the units consumed  for the period from 02.05.2022 to 17.06.2022 are 1576 for total 46 days and the complainant was asked to pay an amount of Rs.10,719/- which were not correct. On 02.05.2022 itself, the new meter which was installed at the premises of the complainant was running abnormally fast and jumping which fact was brought to the notice of the OPs but to no avail. Upon advice of OP No.1, the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.5000/-, vide receipt No.59063000 dated 08.07.2022, with the hope that the said meter will be replaced shortly but to no avail.  Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version wherein it has been stated that the electricity bill bearing no.167362875996 dated 17.06.2022, was issued to the complainant, wherein meter reading for old meter was shown to be 250 units for the period between 27.03.2022 to 02.05.2022 (36 days) and meter reading for new meter was shown to be 1576 units for the period between 02.05.2022 to 17.06.2022 (46 days). The OPs had sent the said electricity bill to the tune of Rs.10,418/- for the actual units consumed by the complainant. The amount of Rs.10,418/- was to be paid by the complainant within the stipulated period, failing which he was liable to pay an amount of Rs.10,719/-. The complainant was issued another electricity bill dated 15.07.2022 in substitution of the impugned bill dated 17.06.2022, wherein meter reading for old meter was shown to be 250 units for the period between 27.03.2022 to 02.05.2022 (36 days) and meter reading for new meter was shown to be 1918 units for the period between 02.05.2022 to 04.07.2022 (63 days). The complainant was asked to pay in total a sum of Rs.7,329/- on or before the due date of 25.07.2022 vide the new electricity bill dated 15.07.2022, after adjusting Rs.5,000/- which the complainant had already paid vide receipt no. 59063000 dated 08.07.2022. The complainant was issued a subsequent electricity bill dated 29.09.2022 for the period between 04.07.2022 to 29.09.2022, wherein the arrears of previous bill dated 15.07.2022 had also been incorporated. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with special costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A, alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Harish Kumar, SDO of the OPs, UHBVNL, Model Town, Ambala City as Annexure RW1/A alongwith Annexure R-1 to R-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.  
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by raising excessive bill to the tune of Rs.10,719/- for the period from 02.05.2022 to 17.06.2022 for alleged 1576 units, as the new meter installed was found to be abnormally fast and jumping and at the same time not rectifying the said defective meter, the OPs are deficient in providing service and indulged into unfair trade practice.
7.           Learned counsel for OPs submitted that correct bill to the tune of  Rs.10,418/- for the period from 02.05.2022 to 17.06.2022 for alleged 1576 units was raised with the complainant, yet, he failed to pay the entire amount despite sending him number of reminders. He further  submitted that  the complainant was asked to pay a total of Rs.7,329/- on or before the due date of 25.07.2022 vide the new electricity bill dated 15.07.2022, after adjusting Rs.5,000/- which the complainant had already paid vide receipt no. 59063000 dated 08.07.2022. He further submitted that  the complainant was issued a subsequent electricity bill dated 29.09.2022 for the period between 04.07.2022 to 29.09.2022, wherein the arrears of previous bill dated 15.07.2022 had also been incorporated.
8.           The moot question which needs to be decided in this complaint is, as to whether, the OPs were right in raising bill dated 17.6.2022 to the tune of Rs.10,418/- for the period from 02.05.2022 to 17.06.2022 for alleged 1576 units or not? It is significant to mention here that the complainant in order to prove that he could not have utilized such huge units of electricity in his small house for the period from 02.05.2022 to 17.06.2022 has placed on record his previous electricity consumption bill for the period from 27.03.2022 to 02.05.2022, which shows that he had consumed 250 units only. On the other hand, the OPs have miserably failed to place on record any document, wherefrom, it could be revealed that the complainant has actually consumed more than 1500 units, for the period from 02.05.2022 to 17.06.2022. The OPs could not make it clear as to how, all of a sudden there was such a big jump of 1576 units in the consumption of electricity for the period from 02.05.2022 to 17.06.2022. It is not the version of the OPs that this electricity connection during this period was used for commercial purpose or consumption of electricity increased due to some important functions like marriage etc. in the house or that any construction work was going on in this house or in any nearby house and electricity was used for construction work from this electricity connection.  Even this much has not been proved by the OPs that on receipt of complaint from the complainant regarding excess bill aforesaid, necessary steps to ensure that the new meter is defective or not, have been taken by them. On the other hand, on receipt of complaint from the complainant regarding defective new meter showing consumption of excessive units, as a result of which huge bill was raised, it was required of the OPs to send the electricity meter installed in the premises of the complainant for testing in distribution company’s laboratory or any other authorized laboratory authorized by State Electricity Regulatory Commission and provide a copy of the said report to the complainant. However, there is nothing on record to prove that such steps were even taken by the OPs in this case. In our considered view, in such a situation the complainant cannot be burdened to pay Rs.10,418/- shown in the bill in question by the OPs, as consumption of electricity by him for the period from 02.05.2022 to 17.06.2022 followed by sundry charges.
9.           Under above circumstances, in our considered opinion, if we order the OPs to raise fresh demand in respect of the electricity consumed by the complainant for the period from 02.05.2022 to 17.06.2022 on average bimonthly consumption of electricity on the electricity connection in question during the previous six months as per instructions given in Clause B of the Sales Circular No.U-29 of 2011 issued on September 07th, 2011 by Chief General Manager, Commercial, Panchkula and Clause 1(b) of Sales Circular No.U-61/2013 issued on December 18th, 2013 by Chief General Manager/Commercial, UHBVN, Panchkula, that will meet the ends of justice. Our this view finds support from the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, in Jagdeep Rana vs Uhbvnl, First Appeal No  :  1109 of 2017 decided on 26 March, 2018, wherein under similar circumstances, while allowing the appeal filed by the complainant, it was held as under:-

“……Moreover, if it be considered that the meter reader mentioned wrongfully the consumption of electricity as 800 units bimonthly and it came to the notice of other officials or officers of the UHBVNL during the previous eight months and due to this reason there was so much increase in the reading of the electricity bill regarding consumption of the electricity. In that eventuality, certainly the total arrears of consumption of electricity should have been mentioned in the electricity bill Exhibit C-2. In this case there is sudden rise in the consumption of the electricity as shown in the electricity bill Exhibit C-2 which is 25 times of the previous six months bimonthly consumption. In the next bimonthly bill Exhibit C-1 the consumption is shown 43 times of the previous six months bimonthly consumption of electricity. In these circumstances, findings cannot be given that increase in the consumption was shown in the electricity bills because during the previous so many months, electricity meter reader recorded wrong figure of consumption of electricity. In our view, if the opposite parties feel that all it happened due to involvement of meter reader or any other official of the opposite parties, in that situation before blaming the complainant, the opposite parties should have taken strict disciplinary action against the meter reader and other officials of the UHBVNL involved. It is strange that in such a situation, the officers of the opposite parties instead of solving the problem and redressing the genuine grievance of the complainant are raising demand of payment of the wrongful bill amount claimed by the opposite parties.

In this situation, only option before us is to give findings that all it happened due to defect in the electricity meter and more particularly due to all of a sudden jumping of the electricity meter.As per discussions above in detail, as the opposite parties could not give any good and solid reason of issuance of the electricity bills Exhibits C-1 and C-2 mentioning huge amount, it will be justified to quash the above mentioned two electricity bill i.e. bill Exhibit C-2 issued regarding the period from November 30th, 2013 to January 31st, 2014 and the bill Exhibit C-1 regarding the period January 31st, 2014 to March 31st, 2014 and to direct the opposite parties to issue a fresh electricity bill regarding the above mentioned period of four months from November 30th, 2013 to March 31st, 2014 mentioning total bimonthly consumption of electricity in terms of units as 800 (total 1600 units). The opposite parties are directed to issue fresh electricity bills regarding the disputed period on average bimonthly consumption of electricity on this electricity connection during the previous six months as per instructions given in Clause B of the Sales Circular No.U-29 of 2011 issued on September 07th, 2011 by Chief General Manager, Commercial, Panchkula and Clause 1(b) of Sales Circular No.U-61/2013 issued on December 18th, 2013 by Chief General Manager/Commercial, UHBVN, Panchkula in case the domestic electricity meter is found defective, sticky, dead stop, burnt, faulty or inoperative, premises locked, the electricity bill be prepared on the basis of average of last six months. The consumption of the same months of the preceding year is not available, therefore, it will be justified to direct the complainant to pay the electricity bill regarding the above mentioned period treating consumption of electricity in terms of units as 800 being bimonthly average consumption of electricity during the preceding six months. The opposite parties shall also not be entitled to receive surcharge and other electricity charges mentioned in the electricity bills Exhibit C-1 and Exhibit C-2. The complainant shall be liable to make payment of the electricity fuel surcharge etc. considering consumption of electricity on this electricity connection as 1600 units for a period of four months ending on March 31st, 2014…..”

10.               Resultantly, the demands raised by the OPs and also the allied charges, raised in respect of the electricity meter in dispute for the period from 02.05.2022 to 17.06.2022 are quashed.
11.               In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the Ops, in the following manner:-

• To raise fresh demand in respect of the electricity consumed by the complainant for the period from 02.05.2022 to 17.06.2022 on average bimonthly consumption of electricity on the said electricity connection during the previous six months as per instructions given in Clause B of the Sales Circular No.U-29 of 2011 issued on September 07^th, 2011 and clause 1(b) of Sales Circular no.U-61/2013, referred to above, without levying any penalty/surcharge/delayed interest and accordingly adjust the amount of Rs.5000/- already paid by the complainant, in compliance of the order dated 04.08.2022, of this Commission.   
• To get the meter in question checked and rectify the same, if required.
• To pay Rs.3,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
• To pay Rs.2,000/-, as litigation expenses.

 

The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 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:- 10.06.2024.

 

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