Haryana

StateCommission

A/1248/2016

M.C.AHUJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

SHUBHANKAR BAWEJA

07 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    1248 of 2016

Date of Institution:      21.12.2016

Date of Decision :      07.08.2017

 

M.C. Ahuja son of Phiriya Lal, Resident of House No.1222, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

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

2.      The Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Opposite Sunita Nursing Home, Kurukshetra.

3.      Sub Divisional Officer/A.E.D. Operation Sub Division No.II, UHBVN Limited, Kurukshetra.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Argued by:          Shri Shubhankar Baweja, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Ranbir Singh Deswal-Sub Divisional Officer along with Ms. Alka Joshi, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

         This appeal has been preferred by complainant-M.C. Ahuja, against the order dated November 25^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby the complaint was dismissed.

2.                Complainant-M.C. Ahuja was provided a domestic electricity connection bearing account No.KT-18/2485 K-X in his residential premises, House No.1222, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, having 3.4 KWs load. The complainant used to pay the electricity bills regularly prior to August 19^th, 2008. On that day, the complainant felt that the electricity meter had become defective and was running very fast.   On that day at about 10:50 A.M. reading of the electricity meter was at 17981 units and in the evening at 5:40 P.M. reading was 18130 units. Consumption of electricity in terms of units was shown 149 within seven hours.

3.                     On August 20^th, 2008, the complainant requested the opposite parties-Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) to replace the electricity meter in writing and the electricity meter was replaced on September 9^th, 2008.  An electricity bill (Exhibit C-4) amounting to Rs.36,336/- was received on September 20^th, 2009 showing consumption of electricity as 7509 units regarding the period from  July 02^nd, 2008 to September 02^nd, 2008. The next electricity bill (Exhibit C-5) was received on November 21^st, 2008 amounting to Rs.76,862/-, mentioning old reading of the electricity meter as 5 and new reading as 99 but showing consumption of electricity in terms of units as 8357.  Out of the above mentioned amount, on December 04^th, 2008 the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.23,372/- with the assurance that necessary adjustment would be made regarding that electricity bill after receiving reports. Again, the electricity bill amounting to Rs.22,918/- was received on March 17^th, 2009 regarding the period from January 02^nd, 2009 to March 02^nd, 2009.  The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund an amount of Rs.23,372/- already deposited, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and to withdraw the electricity bill dated March 17^th, 2009 and calculation of consumption of the electricity be made on average basis. The opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation 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 District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint and that the complainant has concealed true and material facts from the District Forum.  As per version of the opposite parties, after the electricity meter was replaced, the old electricity meter was sent to the M&T lab.  As per checking report received the old electricity meter was running 70% fast. After making necessary adjustment on this basis, a bill amounting to Rs.22,918/- was sent to the complainant on March 17^th, 2009.  It is admitted fact that the complainant earlier deposited an amount of Rs.23,372/-. It is pleaded that an amount of Rs.22,918/- was mentioned in the electricity bill dated March 17^th, 2009 after necessary correction.

5.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.

6.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated November 25^th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

7.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated November 25^th, 2016, passed by the learned District Forum, the complainant has filed the present appeal with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to allow the complaint.

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

9.                During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that a domestic electricity connection having 3.4 KWs load, bearing account No.KT-18/2485 was provided in the residential house owned by the complainant bearing No.1222, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.  It is also admitted fact that prior to July 02^nd, 2008 the complainant used to pay electricity bills regularly without any default.  Problem for the first time arose when on August 19^th, 2008, the complainant noticed that the electricity meter installed in his premises was running very fast and consumption of electricity on that date was shown 149 units within a period of 7 hours.  On next day, on August 20^th, 2008 the complainant submitted complaint before the opposite parties in writing and resultantly the old electricity meter was changed on September 09^th, 2008. 

10.              Next electricity bill was received by the complainant on September 20^th, 2008 (Exhibit C-4) amounting to Rs.36,336/- showing consumption of electricity in terms of units as 7509.  The next electricity bill (Exhibit C-5) was received on November 21^st, 2008 regarding the period from September 02^nd, 2008 to November 02^nd, 2008 amounting to Rs.76,862/- including an amount of Rs.36,362.28 as arrears.  In this electricity bill old reading is mentioned as 5 units and new reading as on November 02^nd, 2008 is shown as 99.  In fact, electricity was consumed during this period in terms of units only 94 but the opposite parties have wrongly shown consumption of electricity during these two months in terms of units as 8357.  On December 04^th, 2008, admittedly the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.23,372/- tentatively on the assurance of correction of electricity bills on average basis.  The main controversy in this case is regarding the above mentioned two bi-monthly electricity bills.

11.              It will be pertinent to mention here that consumption of electricity on this electricity connection during the previous six months shown in the electricity bills issued in the months of March, May and July, 2008 in terms of units was 278, 274 and 234 respectively. In this way, average bi-monthly consumption of electricity during the preceding six months was 260 units.  Consumption of electricity shown in the new electricity meter in the bills issued in the months of January, March and May, 2009 in terms of units was 55, 48 and 140.  In this way, average consumption of electricity on this electricity meter during the succeeding six months of the disputed electricity bills remained as 81 units. 

12.              During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite parties as well as S.D.O. (Op.) UHBVNL, namely Shri Ranbir Singh Deswal could not make it clear that due to what reason the consumption of electricity is shown as 8357 units in the electricity bill received in the month of November, 2008 regarding the period from September 02^nd, 2008 up to November 02^nd, 2008.  Similarly, there remains no doubt of any type that consumption of electricity during the period from July 02^nd, 2008 up to September 02^nd,  2008 as shown in the electricity bill (Exhibit C-4) is also highly excessive which occurred due to defect in the electricity meter. The consumption of electricity during the disputed period from July 02^nd, 2008 up to September 02^nd, 2008 is shown 28 times of the bi-monthly average consumption during the preceding six months period and 92 times of the bi-monthly average consumption during the succeeding six months period. 

13.              If version of the opposite parties is believed that the electricity meter was running 70% fast, in that eventuality also, the consumption of electricity can be considered regarding the period July 02^nd, 2008 up to September 02^nd, 2008 only as 4417 units.  Anyhow, when average consumption of electricity during the preceding six months bi-monthly is 260 units and consumption of electricity during the succeeding six months from the date of replacement of the electricity meter bi-monthly is 81 units, in that eventuality the consumption of electricity shown in terms of units 4417 also appears to be highly excessive.  Even if total consumption of these two months be considered as 4417 units, in that eventuality also, the amount should have been mentioned in the electricity bill (Exhibit C-4) only as Rs.21,390/-. The complainant has already deposited an amount of Rs.23,372/- on December 04^th, 2008.  In this way, the electricity charges up to November 02^nd, 2008 have already been paid by the complainant even more than the actual amount. Findings can be safely given that consumption of electricity in terms of units as 8357 is wrongly shown without mentioning any reason. In this way, consumption of electricity regarding electricity bill received on November 20^th, 2008 is to be considered as 94 units regarding the period from September 02^nd, 2008 to November 02^nd, 2008 on the basis of the reading of the electricity meter.

14.              There may be 2-3 other reasons also of showing excessive consumption of electricity in the electricity meter. One of the reasons may be that during the previous months, the reading of the electricity meter was not noted by the meter reader but it is not the version of the opposite parties itself and record shows that reading of the electricity meter was being noted regularly bi-monthly.  The electricity meter was also found running 70% fast as per M&T lab report. Another reason of showing so much consumption of electricity may be jumping of the electricity meter.  Jumping of the electricity meter may be possible due to low voltage, fluctuation in supply of electricity or excessive load on the transformer. If it happened due to jumping of the electricity meter due to the reasons mentioned above, in that eventuality also the fault is of the opposite parties and not of the consumer.

15.              Regarding excessive electricity consumption, there may be another reason of using this electricity connection in some important function like marriage or any other social gathering or in a nearby construction work. But it is also not the version of the opposite parties that this electricity connection was used for such like activities.  In these circumstances, findings can be safely given that all it happened due to fault on the part of the opposite parties.  In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the amount claimed by the opposite parties regarding the period of four months, as mentioned earlier, is highly excessive and surcharge amount is also being claimed from the complainant un-necessarily from the month of September, 2008 onwards. Findings can be safely given that the opposite parties are not entitled to recover any amount as mentioned in the electricity bill issued on March 17, 2009 (Exhibit C-8).  The complainant also is entitled to refund or get adjustment of the electricity bill amount of Rs.23,372/- deposited on December 04^th, 2008. 

16.              Findings have been given that the opposite parties are not entitled to recover an amount of Rs.22,918/-, as claimed in electricity bill dated March 17^th, 2009 (Exhibit C-8) along with surcharge from the complainant. Now this Commission is required to give findings that how much amount the complainant should be directed to pay regarding consumption of electricity regarding the disputed period of four months from July 02^nd, 2008 up to November 02^nd, 2008. 

17.              Admittedly, the electricity energy used to be supplied in the house of the complainant during this period.  As per instructions given in Clause (b) of Sales Circular No.U-6/2007, Clause (b) of Sales Circular No.U-29/2011 issued on September 07^th, 2011 and Clause 1(b) of Sales Circular No.U-61/2013 dated December 18^th, 2013 issued by General Manager/Commercial, UHBVNL, Panchkula; in case of domestic electricity meter is found defective dead stop, broken/faulty or inoperative, the electricity bills can be prepared on the basis of average of last six months. In this case, consumption of 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 of two months from July 02^nd, 2008 up to September 02^nd, 2008 treating consumption of electricity in terms of units as 260 being bi-monthly average consumption of electricity during the preceding six months.  Findings have already been given that as per actual reading of the electricity meter noted by the meter-reader, total consumption of electricity regarding the period from September 02^nd, 2008 up to September 02^nd, 2008 was only 94 units. The opposite parties wrongfully without any reason created confusion and problem by mentioning consumption of electricity in the column of billed units as 8357.  In this way, findings can be safely given that consumption of electricity in terms of units regarding the disputed period from July 02^nd, 2008 up to November 02^nd, 2008 was only 354 (260+94) on preceding six months average basis.

18.              As per discussion above in detail, it will be justified to completely quash the electricity bill Exhibit C-8 issued on March 17^th, 2009 regarding the period from January 02^nd, 2009 up to March 02^nd, 2009 showing the total amount due as Rs.22,918/- after showing deduction of an amount of Rs.34,030/- regarding the disputed period considering that the electricity meter was running 70% fast.  In fact, in this bill, the arrears of the electricity bills amount of the disputed period was mentioned as arrears and thereafter an amount of Rs.34,030/- was deducted.  In these circumstances, findings are given that the total amount claimed in the electricity bill dated March 17^th, 2009 (Exhibit C-8) stands quashed.  Findings are also given that the total consumption of electricity in terms of units from July 02^nd, 2008 up to November 02^nd, 2008 will be treated as 354 units.  At the time of preparation of electricity bills in future, the opposite parties shall adjust the excess amount, if any, deposited by the complainant on December 04^th, 2008 which was Rs.23,372/- considering consumption of electricity during the above mentioned period of four months as only 354 units. The opposite parties also shall not be entitled to receive any amount as surcharge claimed in the electricity bills issued after September 02^nd, 2008 till date as the regular electricity bills could not be paid due to fault of the opposite parties.

19.              As per discussion above in detail, findings given by the learned District Forum vide order dated November 25^th, 2016 cannot be held to be valid and justified and are hereby set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant-complainant is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is allowed directing the opposite parties to consider consumption of electricity in terms of units on this electricity connection from July 02^nd, 2008 up to November 02^nd, 2008 as 354 units on six months average basis.

20.              As discussed above, the total electricity bill issued on March 17^th, 2009 (Exhibit C-8) stands quashed.  The opposite parties shall not claim any amount as surcharge from the complainant as mentioned in the electricity bills after September 02^nd, 2008 till today.

21.              The opposite parties at the time of preparation of the future electricity bills shall refund or adjust the excess amount, if any, paid on December 04^th, 2008 amounting to Rs.23,372/- considering consumption of electricity in terms of units regarding disputed four months spell from September 02,d 2008 up to November 02^nd, 2008, mentioned above as 354 units only.  Appeal is accordingly allowed.

 

Announced 07.08.2017

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

Balbir Singh Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL