Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/294/2014

Mohd. Sahabudeen s/o Sh.Rukamdeen, - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL, - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Saini

07 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

                                                                                   Complaint No.294 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of Institution:8.7.2014.

                                                                                    Date of Decision:7.9.2017.

 

Mohd. Sahabudeen (70) son of Sh.Rukamdeen, Imam in Masjit at village Pilkhanwala, tehsil Bilaspur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar resident of village Ratouli, tehsil Bilaspur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                               …Complainant.                                                       

                                    Versus

 

1.         UHBVNL, op. Sub Division, Bilaspur, tehsil Bilaspur, Dist. Yamuna Nagar through its S.D.O.

2.         UHBVNL Yamuna Nagar through its Executive Engineer, Op. Division.

3.         UHBVNL Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its Managing Diector.

 

                                                                                                               ..Respondents.         

 

Before: SH. SATPAL …………….    PRESIDENT

            SH. S.C. SHARMA  …………………………MEMBER.

            SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, ………...MEMBER

 

Present: Sh.S.S.Saini, Advocate for complainant.

              Sh.Zile Singh, Advocate, for respondents.

 

ORDER   :       (SATPAL, PRESIDENT).

 

1.                     The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter the respondents shall be referred as OPs). 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint as alleged by the complainant are that the complainant is consumer of the Ops having electric connection bearing account No.Y35JB135290Y and has been paying the bills regularly.  In the month of January-2014, the meter of the complainant jumped and the matter was reported to the officials of the OP No.1 who used to come to check the reading and they had assured that they will report the matter to the office.  The complainant was astonished to receive the illegal and excessive bill dated 10.2.2014 for Rs.46,104/- whereas the bill of the complainant never exceeded Rs.1000/- for two months.  In March-2014, the complainant personally contacted the OP No.1 to correct the bill in question but they continued to linger on the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately on 20.3.2014, the Op No.1 demanded a written application and accordingly the complainant moved an application to the Op No.1 who assured that they will send their official to check the status of the meter and thereafter the JE of the Ops checked the premises of the complainant and made its report that an amount of Rs.45,547/- will be adjusted after approval.    Thereafter, the Ops have sent the excessive and illegal bill dated 8.5.2014 for Rs.88,483/-, then also the complainant visited the OP No.1 but the Op No.1 prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint by directing the Ops to quash all the disputed bills dated 10.2.2014, 7.4.2014, 11.4.2014 and 8.5.2014 and correct the same as per actual consumption charges and not to recover the above said disputed amount and not to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as cost of proceedings. 

3.                     Upon notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections that the complaint is no maintainable; the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complaint is not maintainable; the bills have been sent to the complainant as per actual consumption charges.  Earlier the meter of the complainant was replaced by the Ops on 5.10.2010 because of its burning and new meter was installed.  The complainant moved an application for checking the reading of his meter upon which a JE visited the premises of the complainant on 20.2.2014 for checking the meter and its reading.  At that time the reading of the meter was 2893 and serial number of the meter was found different from the meter actually installed by the Ops on 5.10.2010 as per the MCO whereas the actual reading of the meter as per the record of meter reader and record of the Ops was 8837 on January-2014.  Thereafter, the Ops issued notice no.406, dated 21.3.2014 to the Field Officer, HSEL, Bilaspur for taking meter reading of the complainant upon which the Field Officer, HSEL Bilaspur reported that when the meter reader went for reading during January-2014 the reading of the meter was 8837 and the said meter had its No.815994 make Genus of 10-60A Amp.  The Field Office, HSEL,Bilaspur further intimated that when the meter reader went for taking reading of the said meter on 4.3.2014 the reading was found to be 10192, accordingly the complainant was informed by the meter reader at the time.  Then the meter reader again went to take reading of the meter on 21.3.2014 in compliance of notice issued by the SDO, UHBVNL, Bilaspur and stated that the reading of the said meter was 2699 which bears sr.No.364255 make Genus and of 10-60Amp.  From the above it has been found that the complainant has himself replaced his electric meter without the consent and information of the Ops which leads to the theft of electricity.  On 3.9.2014 site was visited by the checking staff of Ops in the presence of complainant and according to the checking report the said electric meter has been packed and sent to Lab for checking the accuracy of the same and another meter was installed at the time of checking by the checking staff; this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.  On merits, the Ops reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                     To prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complaint as annexure CW/A, documents such as copy of bills as annexure C.1 to C.3, copy of application dated 20.3.3014 as annexure C.4, bills as annexure C.5 to C.7, copy of bill for Rs.85939/- as annexure C.8, copy of receipt dated 16.7.2014 for Rs.35393/- as annexure C.9, copy of receipt of Rs.6277/- and Rs.2000/- as annexure C.10, and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Vishal Saini, SDO as annexure RW/A, document such as copy of  checking report, copy of RCO as annexure R.2, copy of ledger as annexure R.3, copy of application dated 20.3.2014 as annexure R.4, copy of letter dated 21.3.2014as annexure R.5, copy of report of Field Officer, HSEL, Bilaspur as annexure R.6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. 

6.                     After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, it is clear that the complainant is consumer of the Ops and has been paying the bills regularly.  The plea taken by the Ops that the complainant had changed the meter without the consent of the Nigam is not tenable because firstly, the meter reader of the Nigam has been taking the reading regularly, then he was under obligation to report regarding the change of meter but the meter reader has never reported that the complainant had changed the meter at the site of the complainant.  Secondly, the question of variation in the reading as well as defect in the meter has been informed by the complainant himself not by any officer/official of the Nigam, it shows that the complainant was fair at his place.  So, far as the plea taken by the Ops that the meter was got checked from the JE as well as from the Field Officer, HSEL, Bilaspur is concerned, both the reports do not bears the signatures of the complainant which were mandatory as per law and the department should have lodged an FIR against the complainant if any meter was replaced by the complainant at his own level which was not done so, hence, the version of the Ops is not reliable and justifiable.  The factual position of the consumption of the electricity by the complainant prior to dispute as per meter reading having account No.5290Y as per annexure R.3 filed by the Ops are as under:-

Month	Old Reading	New Reading	Units Consumed
5/10	4045	4098	53
7/10	4098	4157	59
9/10	4157	4290	133
11/10	4290	4290	(0)Meter changed vide MCO dt.3.10.10 effected on 9.11.2010.
01/11	00	157	157
3/11	157	325	168
5/11	325	451	126
7/11	451	558	107
9/11	558	643	85
11/11	643	850	207
01/12	850	1050	200
3/12	1050	1140	90
5/12	1140	1311	171
7/12	1311	1380	69
9/12	1380	1570	190
11/12	1570	1602	32
01/13	1602	2010	408
3/13	2010	2187	177
5/13	2187	2217	30
7/13	2217	2279	62
9/13	2279	2457	178

7.                                 From the perusal of the above said table, it is clear that the meter of the complainant was working properly and in the month of 11/13, no reading has been shown by the meter reader of the Ops and in the next bill the consumer units has been shown as 8837 and in the next bill the consumer units have been shown as 1255, which is not justifiable from the perusal of the above said detail of consumption of the electricity by the complainant.   From the perusal of six electricity consumption bills for the period w.e.f.11/12 to 9/13, the average consumption comes out 143 units bi-monthly, therefore it is justifiable and reasonable to have a base of 178 units bi-monthly which is the consumption just before disputed period.  In view of above said discussion and perusal of detail of bills and to save the loss to the exchequer of the State Government as well as in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the account of the complainant is ordered to be overhauled by taking the consumed unit 178 bi-monthly as base.  We therefore, direct the Ops to charge the bill for the complete disputed period @ 178 units bi-monthly by overhauling the account of the complainant and issue the fresh bill within one month from the date of preparation and this order of accept the same in three equal installments with further bills without any surcharge.  However, the complainant is directed to pay the amount as per fresh bill to be issued by the Ops in three equal installments.   First  installment  within  one  month  from  the  date  of  receipt  of  bill, second  and third installments will be paid with the next bills.   It is further made clear that if the complainant  fails  to  deposit  the  amount  in  three  equal  installments  the Ops shall be at  liberty  to  charge  the  further  surcharge  on  the  amount   from  the  date  of  issue  of fresh  bill.   In  the  present  case,  it  is clear that  the  complainant  had  paid  Rs.35393/- on 16.7.2014 in compliance  of  order  dated  9.7.2014  passed  by  this  Forum,  so  the  Ops  are  directed   to   adjust   the   above  said  amount   after  overhauling  the  account of the complainant  as   directed   above  and,   if any,   amount   becomes         due towards  the  complainant the same be recovered as directed above and if any amount is found excess that will be adjusted in the account of the complainant.  Complaint stands disposed of accordingly.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs.  File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court: 7.9.2017.                              ]

       

                                                                                                (SATPAL)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

                           (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                (S.C. SHARMA)

                           MEMBER.                                                   MEMBER.