Haryana

StateCommission

A/1277/2016

MANOHAR LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.GAHLAWAT

12 Jul 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    1277 of 2016

Date of Institution:      27.12.2016

Date of Decision :       14.07.2017

 

Manohar Lal s/o Sh. Chander Bhan, Resident of Ward No.13, Adarsh Nagar, Jhajjar, District Jhajjar.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Sub Divisional Officer (OP)/ Concern Office, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Jhajjar, Tehsil and District Jhajjar.

2.      Executive Engineer (OP) Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Jhajjar, Tehsil and District Jhajjar.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri A.K. Gahlawat, Advocate for appellant.

Mrs. Alka Joshi, Advocate assisted by Shri Umed Singh, Sub Divisional Officer, for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred by complainant against the order dated December 05^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.                Manohar Lal-complainant (appellant herein), resident of Ward No.13, Adrash Nagar, Jhajjar was provided a domestic electricity connection bearing account No.2111122222 long time back in his residential premises, by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL)-Opposite Parties/respondents. Complainant used to pay electricity bills regularly and never committed default. In the month of September, 2015, the complainant came to know that the electricity meter provided on his electricity connection was running very fast. Consumption of electricity was being shown more than 350 units every day. The electricity meter was also showing 14.860 KWs load against the sanctioned load of 2.00 KWs. Considering written request of the complainant, the electricity meter was replaced on September 17^th, 2015 by the opposite parties. In the month of December, 2015, the complainant received the electricity bill (Exhibit P-7) amounting to Rs.1,83,219/- showing bimonthly consumption of electricity in terms of units as 24842. As per version of the complainant, the opposite parties started threatening the complainant to disconnect the electricity connection due to non-payment of the above mentioned bill. The electricity bill issued to the complainant is highly excessive and illegal. The complainant is not liable to pay the above mentioned electricity bill. It is prayed that the opposite parties be directed to withdraw the above mentioned electricity bill amounting to Rs.1,83,219/-, received in the month of December, 2015 and to prepare a fresh and correct bill and not to recover surcharge amount. The complainant is also entitled to receive an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and an amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                The opposite parties in their written version have taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that the complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts and conduct. It is admitted fact that the electricity connection bearing account No.2111122222 is provided in residential premises of the complainant situated in Adrash Nagar, Jhajjar. It is also admitted fact that prior to the month of September, 2015, the complainant used to pay electricity bills regularly. It is also admitted fact that the electricity meter provided to the complainant was replaced on 17^th September, 2015 and final reading of the electricity meter at the time of dismantlement was 24842. The electricity meter was changed on 21^st September, 2015 and the old meter was got checked in M &T lab, Rohtak on 16^th December, 2015. As per report (Exhibit R-2) of the M&T lab, the old electricity meter was found within the permissible limits/O.K. The reading of the electricity meter showing consumption as 24842 units was found correct. The consumer paid electricity bill considering consumption of electricity in terms of units only as 3268. The opposite parties have taken plea that in fact the complainant had accumulated the reading which was 21574 units. In this way, the complainant was liable to make payment of an amount of Rs.1,83,219/- on the basis of bimonthly consumption of the electricity, as mentioned in the electricity bill received in the month of December, 2015. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.

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

5.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated 5^th December, 2016, complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed by the learned District Forum holding that consumption of electricity in terms of units regarding the period from 15.9.2015 to 22.9.2015 as 24142 units instead of 24842 units. The opposite parties were given direction to prepare afresh electricity bill showing bimonthly consumption of electricity in terms of units as 24142 and to pay an amount of Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

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

7.                It is an admitted fact that the complainant has been provided a domestic electricity connection bearing account No.2111122222 in his residential premises situated in Adrash Nagar, Jhajjar. It is also an admitted fact that prior to the month of September, 2015, the complainant used to pay electricity bills regularly without any default. It is also an admitted fact that considering the request of the complainant, the old electricity meter was replaced on 21^st September, 2015.  In fact, the problem arose when the electricity bill issued on 01.12.2015 (Exhibit P-7) regarding the period from 15^th September, 2015 up to 05^th November, 2015 was received by the complainant mentioning consumption of electricity regarding the period of 7 days from 15^th September, 2015 up to 22^nd September, 2015 as 24842 units and consumption of electricity on this electricity connection from 22^nd September, 2015 up to 5^th November, 2015 in terms of units as 389.  The billed units of the above mentioned period are mentioned as 21125 and 388 units respectively. The complainant was required to pay an amount of Rs.1,83,219/-, as electricity consumption charges. 

8.                The opposite parties in their written version as well as at the time of arguments could not make it clear the actual cause of showing so much consumption of electricity of the relevant period. In the written version only it is pleaded that cause of consumption of electricity, as mentioned above, was due to units consumed by the complainant during the previous months and reading got accumulated. The plea of the opposite parties itself in this case is vague and not specific.  In fact, it appears that the opposite parties themselves do not know the exact reason of showing excessive consumption of electricity in the electricity meter. 

9.                During the course of arguments, it was common case of the parties that prior to the months of September, 2015 the complainant used to pay electricity bills regularly. It is evident from the document, Exhibit P-11, copy of the entries regarding consumption of electricity on this electricity connection six months prior to the month of September, 2015 and six months after the month of November, 2015. In the electricity bill Exhibit P-7 also no arrears of electricity charges is mentioned. Record on the file shows that reading regarding consumption of electricity used to be obtained on behalf of the opposite parties bimonthly regularly. It is not the version of the opposite parties that the electricity bills used to be sent to the complainant before the month of September, 2015 without noting reading of the electricity meter. It is also not the version of the opposite parties that prior to September, 2015 the electricity bills were issued on average consumption basis.  Facts and circumstances of this case are quite clear that the complainant used to pay electricity bills up to the Month of September, 2015 regularly which were issued by the opposite parties on the basis of bimonthly consumption of electricity after noting reading of the electricity meter. 

10.              In fact, it appears that the opposite parties have nothing to say regarding showing so much excessive consumption of electricity in terms of units, as mentioned in the electricity bill Exhibit P-7 and account statement Exhibit P-11.  Bimonthly consumption of electricity in the electricity bills received in the month of May, July and September, 2015 remained in terms of units as 251, 587 and 449 respectively. In this way, during the preceding six months, bimonthly average consumption of electricity on this electricity connection was 429 units. Similarly, bimonthly consumption of electricity in the electricity bills received in the months of February, April and June 2016 in terms of units is shown as 170,238 and 323 respectively.  In this way, bimonthly average consumption of electricity in terms of units during the succeeding six months remained 243.  Bimonthly consumption of electricity on this electricity connection regarding the period from 15^th September, 2015 up to 5^th November, 2015 is shown 102 times of the average bimonthly consumption of electricity on this electricity connection during the succeeding six months.  It is strange that the opposite parties have miserably failed to justify showing excessive consumption of electricity which is approximately 102 times of the average consumption and still they are adamant not to make correction in the electricity bill. 

11.              During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued that the electricity meter which was replaced, was found ok when checked in M&T lab, Rohtak, which is evident from the checking report Exhibit R-2. Learned counsel for the opposite parties also argued that excessive electricity consumption was shown as the units accumulated during the previous month.  We are not much impressed with this contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties. There may be 2-3 reasons of showing excessive consumption of electricity in the electricity meter. One of the reasons may be that during the previous month, 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 bimonthly.  The electricity meter also does not appear to be defective. 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. 

12.              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 the fault on the part of the opposite parties.  It is strange that the complainant is being punished and officers of the UHBVNL have not shown any interest to redress the grievance of the complainant. In these circumstances, in fact, in the electricity bill Exhibit P-7 consumption of electricity during a period of 7 days is shown as 24842.  In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the amount of Rs.1,83,219/- claimed by the complainant, vide electricity bill Exhibit P-7 dated 01^st December, 2015 is liable to be quashed and the complainant cannot be held liable to pay the above mentioned amount to the opposite parties alongwith surcharge because surcharge is also being imposed due to excessive amount claimed in the electricity bills. 

13.              The findings have been given that the opposite parties are not entitled to recover the above mentioned amount of Rs.1,83,219/- 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 from 15^th September, 2015 up to 06^th November, 2015.  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-29/2011 issued on 07^th September, 2011 by Chief General Manager/Commercial, Panchkula and Clause 1(b) of Sales Circular No.U-61/2013 issued on 18^th December, 2013 by Chief General Manager/Commercial, UHBVNL, Panchkula in case the 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. The consumption of the same months of the preceding year is not available. Therefore, it will be justified to direct the complainant to pay electricity bill regarding the above mentioned period treating consumption of electricity in terms of units as 429 being bimonthly average consumption of electricity during the preceding six months. It is made clear that fresh electricity bill shall be prepared showing consumption of electricity in terms of units regarding the period from 15^th September, 2015 up to 6^th November, 2015 as 429 units. The opposite parties shall not be entitled to receive any amount as surcharge as mentioned in the electricity bill, Exhibit P-7, and the fresh electricity bills issued later on till today. The opposite parties in future electricity bill shall add consumption of 429 units regarding the disputed period mentioned above.

14.              No other point was raised during the course of arguments.

15.              As a result, as per discussions above in detail, the appeal filed by the appellant-complainant is allowed. The order dated December 05^th, 2016 passed by the District Forum, accordingly, stands modified and the complaint filed by the complainant is allowed with costs which is assessed as Rs.5500/- to be paid by the opposite parties.

16.              The respondents-opposite parties are directed to treat consumption of electricity in terms of units regarding the period from 15^th September, 2015 to 6^th November, 2015 as 429 which shall be added in the future electricity bill to be prepared. The opposite parties are directed not to claim any amount as surcharge from 15^th September, 2015 till date on this electricity connection due to non-payment of electricity bills as timely payment of the electricity bills could not be possible due to fault of the opposite parties. The opposite parties at the time of preparation of electricity bill in future shall add 429 units only regarding the period from 15^th September, 2015 up to 06^th November, 2015 after adjustment of the electricity bill amount paid by the complainant after 15^th September, 2015 regarding the disputed period.  It is made clear that claim of the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.1,83,219/- in the earlier electricity bills stands quashed.

 

Announced: 14.07.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL