BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Narmail Singh son of Shri Ronki Ram resident of Village Dhurala, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala.         

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., C- 16, Vidyut Sadan, Sector 6 Panchkula -134109 Haryana
2. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Sub Division Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., A-13, Kesri, Near 66KV, Village Kesri 

….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                    Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

         Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

Present:-     Shri Vijay Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.                                                                                                                                 Shri D.S. Danipur, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                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 restore the electricity connection of the complainant.
2. To withdraw the electricity bill no.01748 of Rs.77,888.00 and issue correct bill.
3. To pay Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental tension as well as physical harassment and Rs.50,000/- loss of earnings along with 18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2019 the Government started a new Scheme for change of old Black meters and installation of new electronic meter without any cost in the area. As such, the complainant moved an application for change of old Black meter for taking the benefit of the Government Scheme. Resultantly, new Domestic Electricity connection bearing no. KD14-2896-P was installed in the premises of the complainant.  Earlier the complainant was receiving the electricity bill of about Rs.300-Rs.500/- but after change of new Electronic meter the OPs started raising excessive bills. In the month of April 2019, the OPs raised bill to the tune of Rs.39,020/- which was illegal, as a result of which, the complainant visited the office of OP No.2 but it delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter in October 2019 the complainant received a bill of Rs.55,891/-. The complainant again visited the office of OP No.2 in the matter but to no avail.  Left with no alternative, he wrote application to the Chief Minister of Haryana through C.M. Window Ambala City and requested to direct the OPs to issue correct bill, as a result of which, they reduced the bill to the tune of Rs.37,000/- in October 2019 which was paid by him. Thereafter, despite the fact that the OPs assured that in future the complainant will receive correct bills  but  on 26.2.2020, OP No.2 again sent a bill of Rs.29,964/-; in June 2020 a bill of Rs.37,469/-; in August 2020 a bill of Rs.42984/-; in October 2020 a bill of Rs.49236/-; in December 2020 a bill of Rs.56032/-; in February 2021 a bill of Rs. 59570/-; in April 2021 a bill of Rs. 63217/- and thereafter in the month of August 2021 a bill of Rs.77888/-. However, 04.09.2021, OP No.2 disconnected the electricity meter of the complainant.  The complainant is the BPL card holder and is not capable of paying these huge bills against use of only 4 bulbs, one refrigerator, one water pump, one cooler and two TVs and one ceiling fan. Number of requests made by the complainant to the OPs for redressal of his grievance did not yield any result. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability, no locus standi and time barred etc.  On merits, it has been stated the OPs are not responsible for the work qua connection of electricity including the materials and on the other hand, it is the clear responsibility of the concerned department of UHBVNL. If there is any work pending for connection of the electricity of the tube well of the complainant under the scheme launched by the Government of Haryana, OP No.2 is not responsible for the same. It is evident from the contents of the complaint that providing of the electricity connection to the tube-wells of the farmers totally rests on UHBVNL of the area under the scheme being launched by the Government of Haryana and not OP No.3 and therefore OP No.3 has been wrongly made party and needs to be struck off from the array of OPs. The complainant had paid an amount Rs.37000/- on 07.12.2019. Since electricity bill was not paid by the complaint, as such, he is liable to pay Rs.77888/-. Since he failed to pay the said amount, electricity connection was disconnected thereafter.  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 the complainant as Annexure C-A, alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-21 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered evidence by placing on record documents Annexure R-1 and R-2 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 by raising excessive bills for the period in question and thereafter not withdrawing the said bills, despite the fact that complainant approached the OPs number of times, the OPs are deficient in providing service. 
7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs submitted that correct bill was sent to the complainant against the units consumed by him but he failed to pay the bill amount, as a result of which, the electric connection of the premises of the complainant was disconnected.
8.           The plea of the complainant is that the bill dated 09.02.2020 for Rs.29,964/-;  bill dated 09.06.2020 of Rs.37469/-; bill dated 08.08.2020 of Rs.42984/-; bill dated 08.10.2020 of Rs.49236/-; bill dated 07.12.2020 of Rs.56032/-; bill dated 07.02.2021 of Rs.59570/-; bill dated 11.04.2021 of Rs. 63217/- and bill dated 14.08.2021 of Rs.77888/-, sent by the OP No.2 were very highly exaggerated, on account of the reason that the electronic meter in question replaced by the earlier black meter was defective, as it was running very fast. To prove his version that the complainant has raised complaints with the CM window in the matter he has placed on record the complaints dated 16.09.2019, Annexure C-17 and 21.01.2020, Annexure C-18. At the same time, there is a letter (placed at backside of Annexure R-1) written by the complainant to the OPs with a request to check the meter in question.  However, except site verification of the premises of the complainant, to check the  meter in question, visually and reporting vide documents dated 28.08.2019, Annexure R-1 and 19.12.2019, Annexure R-2 to the effect that the meter in question is installed outside and it is running, the OPs have  miserably failed to place on record any other document, wherefrom, it could be revealed that the complainant has actually consumed the electricity for an amount of Rs.77,888/- for the period as mentioned in bills dated 09.02.2020 to 14.08.2021. There is nothing on record that on receipt of complaint(s) from the complainant regarding excess billing for the period in dispute, necessary steps to ensure that the meter is actually defective or not, have been taken by the OPs. On the other hand, on receipt of complaints from the complainant regarding defective meter showing consumption of excessive units, as a result of which huge bill was raised, it was required of the OPs to send the meter in question for testing in distribution company’s laboratory or any other authorized laboratory authorized by State Electricity Regulatory Commission and provide a copy of the said report to the complainant. However, there is nothing on record to prove that such steps were ever taken by the OPs in this case. In our considered view, in such a situation the complainant cannot be burdened to pay Rs.77,888/- for the disputed period as mentioned in bills dated 09.02.2020 to 14.08.2021.
9.           Under above circumstances, in our considered opinion, if we order the OPs to raise fresh demand in respect of the electricity consumed by the complainant for the period as mentioned in bills dated 09.02.2020 to 14.08.2021 and thereafter also, after calculating it on average bimonthly consumption of electricity on the electricity connection in question during the previous six months as per instructions given in Clause B of the Sales Circular No.U-29 of 2011 issued on September 07th, 2011 by Chief General Manager, Commercial, Panchkula and Clause 1(b) of Sales Circular No.U-61/2013 issued on December 18th, 2013 by Chief General Manager/Commercial, UHBVN, Panchkula, that will meet the ends of justice. Our this view finds support from the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, in Jagdeep Rana vs Uhbvnl, First Appeal No  :  1109 of 2017 decided on 26 March, 2018, wherein under similar circumstances, while allowing the appeal filed by the complainant, it was held as under:-

“……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.

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.

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

Resultantly, the demands raised by the OPs alongwith allied/sundry charges for the period as mentioned in bills dated 09.02.2020 to 14.08.2021 and thereafter also, in respect of the electricity meter in question are quashed. Since, in compliance of the interim order dated 13.10.2021,  the OPs have already restored the electricity connection in question, therefore, no direction is required to be issued to the OPs, at this stage regarding restoration of the electricity connection of the complainant, as sought for by the complainant in the prayer clause.

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

1. To replace the meter in question with a new one.
2. To raise fresh demand in respect of the electricity consumed by the complainant for the period as mentioned in bills dated 09.02.2020 to 14.08.2021 and thereafter also, on average bimonthly consumption of electricity on the said electricity connection during the previous six months (2018) as per instructions given in Clause B of the Sales Circular No.U-29 of 2011 issued on September 07^th, 2011 and clause 1(b) of Sales Circular no.U-61/2013, referred to above, without levying any delayed interest or surcharge/penalty.
3. To adjust the amount/sundry charges, if any deposited by the complainant.
4. To pay amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
5. 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. 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:- 25.09.2023