Haryana

Ambala

CC/183/2022

Mukhtyar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

14 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	183 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	07.06.2022
Date of decision	:	14.12.2023

 

Mukhtyar Singh son of Shri Jeet Singh, aged about 60 years, resident of H.No.20-B, Nishant Bagh, Ambala Cantt (Haryana).

          ……. Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through Executive Engineer, Operation Division UHBVN, Ambala Cantt, 12 Cross Road, Ambala Cantt.
2. SDO Operation, Sub-Division UHBVN, No.1, 12 Cross Road, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                      ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri Saravjeet Singh Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   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 recall the demand of Rs.1,12,872.14P as the same is illegal and arbitrary.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, deprivation and harassment suffered by the complainant on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.
382.  

Any other relief also be granted to the complainant, which Commission deems fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances given above. 

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a resident of H.No.20-B, Nishant Bagh, Ambala Cantt (Haryana), wherein he has obtained from the OPs an electricity connection of domestic supply category with a sanctioned load of 4.00 KW, vide Account No. 1345010000. He has been consuming the electricity supplied by the OPs against the above mentioned electricity connection against the regular payments of the bills. On 24.10.2020, the officials from the office of OP No.2 replaced the meter installed against the electricity connection of the complainant with the new meter as the display of the old meter had gone defective and the meter reading was not visible. The complainant got shocked when he received from the office of OP No.2 a bill dated 09.04.2022 whereby the complainant was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.1,12,872.14P on account of arrears/outstanding dues. The said bill pertains to the period from 08.02.2022 to 09.04.2022. In the said bill the old meter reading and new meter reading has been shown as Zero and the billed units have been shown as 1207.24 with meter status as 'F' which means 'faulty'. On the receipt of the said bill dated 09.04.2022, the complainant immediately contacted OP No.2 and requested him to explain the basis of such an arbitrary demand of Rs.1,12,872.14P. On the request of the complainant, it was orally informed to the complainant that the old meter which was replaced with the new meter on 24.10.2020, was got checked from M & T Lab, and while checking in the Lab, the latest reading in the meter was found to be 34390 Units. OP No.2 further informed the complainant that last reading in the said meter was recorded at 19515 Unit on 12.08.2020, so the complainant was liable to pay for 14875 Units (34390-19515 =14875). After hearing OP No.2, the complainant requested OP No.2 to supply the report of M&T Lab. The said request of the complainant was acceded to and the photocopy of checking report of M&T Lab was supplied to the complainant by OP No.2. The bare perusal of the said report of M&T Lab shows that the complainant was not present in M&T Lab when the meter was being checked in M&T Lab on 15.03.2021. No notice was issued to the complainant to come present in M&T Lab on 15.03.2021 to ensure that the meter was checked in the presence of the complainant. In order to ensure transparency and fair play in the process of checking of the meter, the presence of the complainant in M&T Lab during the checking of meter was mandatory and the absence of the complainant renders the entire process tainted and arbitrary on the basis of which no penalty or financial liability can be fastened on the complainant. The report of M&T Lab itself says that the accuracy of the meter could not be checked as meter display was not visible. When the display was not visible it was highly improbable that meter reading was retrieved. In view of the previous consumption pattern of the complainant it is next to impossible that the complainant could have consumed 14875 units within a short span of approximately 03 months starting from 12.08.2020 to 24.10.2020.  Thus, the complainant requested OP No.2 to recall the demand on account of arrears/outstanding dues to the tune of Rs.1,12,872.14P, but  to no avail which has caused harassment, mental agony, financial loss and deprivation to the complainant. Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action, no locus standi and suppressed the true and material facts etc. On merits, it has been stated that the meter in question was not displaying the reading as a result of which the old meter was changed with a new one. The old meter which was installed at the residence of the complainant was checked on 24.10.2020 and in the LL-1 checking report it was opined that “Checked in the presence of Mukhtiar Singh complainant and old meter replaced vide MCO No. 1345010000- due to reading not visible old meter replaced in card board box duly signed of consumer and sent to the M & T Lab dkt. to retrieve reading”. On the checking of the meter in the Laboratory, it was found that the units consumed by the complainant were 13953 i.e. the difference of old reading and new reading. New reading was 34390 which was retrieved in lab from the old meter and previous reading was 19515 and on calculation by the OPs, bill was sent of 13953 units. Thereafter the notice was issued to the complainant to pay the bill of balance units i.e. 13953 amounting to Rs.1,05,515/-. Notice was issued on 24.12.2021 to the complainant mentioning that this amount is chargeable and it was also mentioned in the said notice that if the complainant has any objection, then in that event, he should visit the office within 7 days of the said notice. The complainant did not raise any objection and the OPs sent the bill showing the amount to be paid by the complainant. Instead of depositing the amount, the complainant has filed this false complaint. As the complainant was given notice and the amount was calculated by following due procedure, the complainant is liable to pay the bill amount. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Seema Batra, SDO of M & T Lab, Kaithal and affidavit of Dinesh Kumar, Junior Engineer, Sub Division No.2 of UHBVN, Kurukshetra as Annexure OP-1/A and OP-1/B respectively alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-7 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 vide bill dated 09.04.2022, Annexure C-6, OPs demanded arrear of Rs.1,12,872.14ps., based on one report dated 15.03.2021 (Annexure OP-2)  issued by the Meter Testing Lab, Dhulkot, even copy of which was also never supplied to him, is illegal and arbitrary. He further submitted that no notice was issued to the complainant to come present at the Meter Testing Lab, Dhulkot to witness the testing of the alleged defective meter, as such, the complainant is not liable to make payment of the said amount of Rs.1,12,872.14ps.
7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs submitted that correct bill of Rs.1,12,872.14ps. was raised vide bill dated 09.04.2022, Annexure C-6, in line with the report dated 15.03.2021 prepared by the Meter Testing Lab, Dhulkot.
8.           The question which needs to be decided by this Commission is as to whether the OPs were justified in raising demand of Rs.1,12,872.14ps. vide bill dated 09.04.2022, or not. The OPs are placing reliance on the report dated 15.03.2021 (Annexure OP-2) having been issued by the Meter Testing Lab, Dhulkot wherein it has been opined that accuracy of the meter could not be checked as meter display was found to be not visible therefore, after opening the meter, reading to the extent of 34390 KWH was extracted. It is significant to mention here that the report dated 15.03.2021 (Annexure OP-2) has not been signed by the complainant. At the same time, it is the definite case of the complainant that he was never informed by any mode/means to mark his presence at the time of checking of the meter in question in the Laboratory at Dhulkot on 15.03.2021. On the other hand, counsel for the OPs while placing reliance on letter dated 12.03.2021, Annexure OP-4 argued that the complainant was informed vide this letter to come present on 15.03.2021 for getting the meter checked in his presence. We have perused this letter dated 12.03.2021, and found that the name of the complainant has been mentioned thereon but his address has not been mentioned. Thus, once the address of the sender is not mentioned in the letter, it cannot be presumed that the same will be delivered to the addressee. Moreso, no proof regarding sending of this letter to the complainant has been placed on record by the OPs. Thus, in the absence of any documentary evidence it cannot be presumed that the said letter was delivered to the complainant. Under these circumstances, reliance placed by counsel for the OPs on letter dated 12.03.2021, Annexure OP-4 is of no help to them.  As such, it can be safely said that, no cogent and convincing evidence has been placed on record by the OPs to prove that any notice was sent to the complainant to witness the said inspection of meter at Meter Testing Lab, Dhulkot on 15.03.2021. In our considered opinion, any such report in the absence of the consumer/complainant has no significant value in the eyes of law and as such, bill dated 09.04.2022, Annexure C-6 raised by the OPs demanding alleged differential amount of Rs.1,12,872.14ps., as arrear on account of reading extracted from the old meter, deserves to be quashed. Our this view is supported by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 7662 of 2016 (O&M)-Satish Sandhu And Anr vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, decided on 4 July, 2018 and also Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Vs M/s Dashmesh Gram Udog Samiti, RFA No.1000 of 2018 decided on 05.04.2018, wherein also, because notice for appearance at the site was not given to the consumer, the expert report was not taken into consideration. In Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and ors. Vs. M/s Haryana Auto Service Station, 2018 LawHerald.Org 1687, notice imposing penalty was quashed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court on the ground that because no notice was sent to the consumer to be present at the time of testing of meter, therefore, the said report is not binding.  
9.           At the same time, the OPs could not make it clear as to how, all of a sudden there was such a big jump of consumption of excess electricity to the tune of Rs.1,12,872.14ps. as shown in the bill dated 09.04.2022, Annexure C-6 stood accrued. It is not the version of the OPs that this electricity connection 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. Resultantly, the demands raised by the OPs vide bill dated 09.04.2022, Annexure C-6 towards differential amount qua the electricity meter in dispute is quashed.

10 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, in the following manner:- 

• To withdraw the bill dated 09.04.2022, Annexure C-6 as the same stood quashed by this Commission.
• To pay amount of 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 this order. However, it is also made clear that any amount paid by the complainant in line of order dated 09.06.2022 passed by this Commission shall be adjusted by the OPs in the forthcoming bills qua the meter in question.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:- 14.12.2023

 

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