Haryana

StateCommission

A/1109/2017

JAGDEEP RANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

SANJAY JAIN

26 Mar 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

First Appeal No  :      1109 of 2017

Date of Institution:        13.09.2017

Date of Decision :         26.03.2018

 

Jagdeep Rana s/o Sh. Mam Chand, Resident of House No.1617-A, Mahavir Nagar, Ambala City.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Sub Divisional Officer (Operation), Sub Division East Division, Ambala City.

2.      Executive Engineer (Operation), Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Division, Ambala District Ambala. 

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

Argued by:          Shri Sanjay Jain, Advocate for appellant.

                             Mrs. Alka Joshi, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated August 31^st, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short ‘the District Forum’).    

2.                Jagdeep Rana – complainant (appellant herein) resident of House No.1617-A, Mahavir Nagar, Ambala City was provided a domestic electricity connection bearing account No.HU01-2617-P, Old account No.M3-1721 in his residential premises by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) – Opposite Parties. The complainant earlier used to pay electricity bills regularly.  All of a sudden, the complainant received bimonthly electricity bill regarding the period from November 30^th, 2013 to January 30^th, 2014 amounting to Rs.1,57,624/- showing consumption of electricity in terms of units as 19823. Again bimonthly electricity bill regarding the period from January 31^st, 2014 up to March 31^st, 2014 amounting to Rs.2,53,658/-  was received showing consumption of electricity in terms of units as 34270.  In this way, regarding a period of four months mentioned above, the complainant was issued bill for payment of total amount of Rs.4,18,099/-. Prior to the month of April, 2012, the status of the electricity meter was mentioned as OK but since the month of April, 2012 the status of the electricity meter is shown as ‘D’ to say defective.  The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties are not entitled to recover the above mentioned amount from the complainant. Moreover, recovery of the above mentioned amount is barred by limitation.

3.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to withdraw the demand of bill amount of Rs.4,18,099/- regarding the period from November 30^th, 2013 up to March 31^st, 2014; not to disconnect the electricity connection; to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony and an amount of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

4.                The opposite parties in their written version have taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is not covered under the definition of ‘consumer’ as provided under the Consumer Protection Act and that the complainant has not appeared in the proceedings of this complaint with clean hands. The opposite parties have taken plea that consumption of electricity has been shown regarding the period from November 30^th, 2013 up to March 31^st, 2014 on the basis of actual consumption of electricity and reading of the consumption in the electricity meter. The electricity meter was functioning properly. Two electricity bills regarding the period mentioned above were issued on the basis of actual consumption of electricity. It is pleaded that the electricity meter of the complainant always remained OK and due to mistake the word ‘D’ was mentioned indicating that the electricity meter remained defective. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint and prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

5.                Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.

6.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated 31^st August, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

7.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated 31^st, 2017, the complaint/appellant has filed the instant First Appeal No.1109 of 2017 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to grant relief to the complainant as prayed in the complaint.

8.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

9.                It is admitted fact that prior to the issuance of the electricity bill regarding the period from November 30^th, 2013 up to January 30^th, 2014 (Exhibit C-2), the complainant used to make payment of the electricity bill regularly. It is also admitted fact that prior to the month of April, 2012, the electricity meter was found OK without any defect.  Version of the complainant is that the electricity meter was shown as defective in the month of April, 2012 onwards, as mentioned in the electricity bills, whereas the opposite parties have taken plea that the electricity meter remained OK throughout and the electricity meter was wrongly mentioned as defective due to mistake in the office.  Admittedly, the complainant received electricity bill regarding the period from November 30^th, 2013 to January 30^th, 2014 amounting to Rs.1,57,624/- showing consumption of electricity in terms of units as 19823,    as mentioned in the electricity bill Exhibit C-2.  Similarly, another electricity bill Exhibit C-1 regarding the period from January 31^st, 2014 to March 30^th, 2014 amounting to Rs.2,53,658/- showing consumption of electricity in terms of units as 34270 was received mentioning payment of total amount of Rs.4,18,099/- was received.

10.              Prior to issuance of electricity bill Exhibit C-2, the complainant received electricity bills regarding the period from January 31^st, 2013 up to the month of November 30^th, 2013 (Exhibits C-3 to C-6) showing  bimonthly consumption of electricity in terms of units as 800. It is also clear from the electricity bills Exhibits C-3 to C-6 that during this period of eight months, four bimonthly electricity bills were not issued on the basis of average consumption. The consumption of 800 units in the above mentioned four electricity bills is shown as actual consumption of electricity mentioning old reading and the new reading and mentioning the date of recording reading of the electricity bills. In this way, it is neither the case of the complainant nor of the opposite parties that four electricity bills Exhibits C-3 to C-6 were issued on average consumption basis. In the written version, the opposite parties could not mention the correct reason regarding all of a sudden increase shown in the electricity bills regarding consumption of electricity. The opposite parties have also not taken plea that it happened due to mistake on the part of the meter reader or any official of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties have also not taken plea that earlier four bills (Exhibits C-3 to C-6) were issued without noting consumption of electricity by the meter reader. The opposite parties have also not taken plea that all it happened on account of collusion of the meter reader or any other staff member of the UHBVNL with the complainant.

11.              We want to make it clear that in the electricity bill Exhibit C-2 regarding the period from November 30^th, 2013 to January 31^st, 2014, the consumption of electricity in terms of units and payment of amount is shown 25 times of the average bimonthly consumption of previous six months. Similarly, in the electricity bill Exhibit C-1 regarding the period from January 31^st, 2014 up to March 31^st, 2014 the consumption of electricity has been shown 43 times of the average consumption of electricity on this electricity connection of the bimonthly six months average consumption. The opposite parties could not make it clear how all of a sudden there was such a big jump in the consumption of electricity. It is not the version of the opposite parties 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.  We want to make it clear that the opposite parties in fact have nothing to say in this regard. The version of the opposite parties is that the above mentioned two electricity bills were issued on the basis of actual consumption of electricity.

12.              Although the opposite parties have not taken plea that the meter reader did not note the actual reading of the electricity meter during the previous eight months when the electricity bills Exhibit C-3 to Exhibit C-6 were issued showing bimonthly consumption of electricity as 800 units each. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite parties as well as Sub Division Officer Shri J.C. Narwal, argued that all it happened as the complainant committed fraud in collusion with the meter reader and meter reader intentionally did not note the correct reading of the electricity meter in the previous months. We are not much impressed with this contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties.  If any such fraud was committed by the meter reader or any other official of the UHBVNL in collusion with the complainant, the proper course was to get a criminal case registered against the persons involved in this alleged act of fraud. Apart from it, the opposite parties should have taken disciplinary action against the meter reader as well as all other officers of the electricity department who were responsible for supervising working of the electricity meter. There may be two possibilities, either the meter reader, complainant and other officials have done any fraudulent act or all it happened due to some serious defects in the electricity meter. It is not the case of the complainant or the opposite parties that it was a case of burnt electricity meter.

13.              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. It is also not the case of the opposite parties that there was an increase in the MDI on this electricity connection. In our view, in such a situation the complainant cannot be burdened to pay the bill amount claimed in the electricity bills Exhibits C-1 and C-2 regarding the period November 30^th, 2013 to March 31^st, 2014.

14.              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.

15.              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.

16.              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 30^th, 2013 to January 31^st, 2014 and the bill Exhibit C-1 regarding the period January 31^st, 2014 to March 31^st, 2014 and to direct the opposite parties to issue a fresh electricity bill regarding the above mentioned period of four months from November 30^th, 2013 to March 31^st, 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 07^th, 2011 by Chief General Manager, Commercial, Panchkula and Clause 1(b) of Sales Circular No.U-61/2013 issued on December 18^th, 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 31^st, 2014.

17.              As per discussions above in detail, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated August 31^st, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum is illegal, invalid and unjustified. Hence, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and by allowing the complaint, the bills Exhibits C-1 and C-2 regarding the period from November 30^th, 2013 up to March 31^st, 2014 are quashed. The opposite parties and the complainant shall be bound by the directions issued in paragraph No.16 above.  The opposite parties shall issue a fresh electricity bill regarding the period from November 30^th, 2013 up to March 31^st, 2014 mentioning bimonthly consumption of electricity in terms of units as 800 mentioning total consumption of electricity regarding the above mentioned period of four months as 1600 units. The complainant shall not be liable to pay any penalty, surcharge or fuel charge etc. on account of non-payment of the electricity bills mentioned above, Exhibits C-1 and C-2, during this period or in future also.

18.              We want to make it clear that non-payment of electricity bills Exhibits C-1 and C-2 shall not be treated as default of any type on the part of the complainant.   The opposite parties shall not disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant for want of payment of electricity bills Exhibits C-1 and C-2. In this case findings have been given mainly regarding the disputed period. The electricity bill issued on March 06^th, 2018 regarding the same electricity connection was placed on the file at the time of arguments showing total liability of the complainant to make payment of an amount of Rs.43,16,746/-. Regarding future electricity bills, if the complainant has any grievance, he can seek redressal of his grievance before the proper competent authority, if he feels any problem after passing of this order also as in this case findings can be given only regarding the disputed period as mentioned in the complaint. As the complainant had to face un-necessary harassment and mental agony, the opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and an amount of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. 

 

 

Announced: 26.03.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL