Haryana

Karnal

CC/390/2020

Parveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 390 of 2020

                                                          Date of instt.25.09.2020

                                                          Date of Decision 18.01.2022

 

Parveen Kumar (age about 56 years) son of Shri Radha Kishan @ Radhay Sham resident of village Chaura, Post Office Dabkoli Kallan, Tehsil and District Karnal, Aadhaar no.476082741651, mobile no.98136-08262.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

UHBVNL, Sub Division, Newal, District Karnal, through Sub Divisional Officer.

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

                    Shri Manoh Sachdeva, counsel for OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that the complainant is consumer of OP and having an electricity connection bearing account no.NJ23-2460-K, which is installed at the house of the complainant at village Chaura, Post Office Dabkoli Kalan, in the name of his father Shri Radha Kishan @ Radhay Sham. The complainant is the user of the said electrical connection. He has been paying the electricity charges to the OP regularly as per consumption. Nothing is outstanding against the complainant regarding the said electricity connection except the bill dated 19.09.2020, amounting to Rs.22,961/- for the month of September, 2020 which has  been received by him online. After receiving the alleged electricity bill for the month of September, 2020 complainant went to the office of the OP and requested the officials for correcting/rectifying the said bill but they have not paid any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Even the officials of the OPs are adamant to recover the alleged amount from the complainant forcibly and illegally. They have not corrected/rectified the said bill till today and even they threatened to disconnect the electric supply of the premises of the complainant. Now, officials of the OP flatly refused to correct the aforesaid electricity bill and are adamant to recover the alleged amount of Rs.22,961/- from the complainant illegally and forcibly. On the other hand, complainant is ready to deposit the bill for the month of September, 2020 as per consumption, which has been shown in the bill amounting to Rs.1074/-. In this way there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi; maintainability; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the amount in question relates to actual consumption of electricity consumed by the complainant and no excess or extra amount is being charged from the complainant. It is further pleaded that as per policy of the Nigam, the meter of the complainant was replaced by the OP on 11.08.2018. The meter was defective from 28.02.2017 to 10.08.2017. The account of consumer was overhauled by the Audit Department of UHBVNL Ltd. on 24.08.2020. The difference of the reading/amount was prepared on the basis of reading/amount of consumer period from 11.08.2018 to 07.08.2019 as per the actual consumption of electricity. The difference chargeable amount of Rs.21455/- be made after due verification by the Audit department of UHBVNL Ltd. After this a notice for the short assessment/penalty of Rs.21455/- sent to the consumer vide memo no.1773 dated 20.08.2020. It is further pleaded that when complainant visited the office of the OP then he was shown him to entire account and audit report and was advised to deposit the entire amount because same is regarding the actual consumption of electricity but he did not bothered for same and filed the present false complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill dated 19.09.2020 Ex.C1, copy of Aadhar card Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 09.07.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sandeep Kumar S.D.O. Ex.OPW1/A, audit report Ex.OP1, statement of audit report Ex.OP2, notice for short assessment Ex.OP3, bill dated 19.09.2020 Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 03.12.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant was/is paying the electricity bill regularly. Complainant received electricity bill dated 19.09.2020 from the OP to the tune of Rs.22,961/-, which was very huge. After receiving the bill complainant visited the office of OP to correct the electricity bill but the electricity bill of the complainant has not been corrected after repeated requests. He further argued that complainant is ready to pay the bill for the month of September, 2020 as per consumption. Hence, complainant prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel of OP while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that as per policy of the Nigam, the meter of the complainant was replaced by the OP on 11.08.2018. The meter was defective from 28.02.2017 to 10.08.2017. The account of complainant was overhauled by the Audit Department of UHBVNL Ltd. on 24.08.2020. The difference of the reading/amount was prepared on the basis of reading/amount of consumer period from 11.08.2018 to 07.08.2019 as per the actual consumption of electricity. The difference chargeable amount of Rs.21455/- be made after due verification by the Audit department of UHBVNL Ltd. After this a notice for the short assessment/penalty of Rs.21455/- sent to the consumer vide memo no.1773 dated 20.08.2020. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             Admittedly, the meter of the complainant has been replaced by the OP on 11.08.2018. The complainant has challenged the bill Ex.C1 dated 19.09.2020 on the ground that he is paying the electricity charges regularly as per consumption but he received the said bill of Rs.22961/- for the month of September, 2020. OPs neither produced the old meter nor report of any expert to ascertain that complainant had consumed the said electricity units for the period of one year.

10.           As per the version of the OP the meter was defected from 28.02.2017 to 10.08.2018. The account of the complainant was overhauled by the audit party of the OP on 24.08.2020 and the differences of the reading/amount was prepared on the basis of reading of the complainant’s meter period from 11.08.2018 to 07.08.2019 as per the actual consumption of the electricity. The differences chargeable amount of Rs.21,455/- be made after due verification by the audit department.

11.           It is not disputed that the complainant was/is paying the electricity bill as per the bills issued by the OP. No complaint was ever made by the complainant with regard to defect of the meter in question. At the time of checking the meter, the OP has failed to issue the notice to the complainant and directly overhaul the said meter without any knowledge of the complainant. If there was any defect in the meter in question, the complainant was required to be heard at that time, but OP did not follow the due procedure with regard to check the alleged defective meter. There is nothing on the file to prove that prior to issue the notice for short assessment Ex.OP3, complainant was heard by the audit party. Furthermore, there was lack of evidence regarding the defective meter i.e. how OP came to know about the defect in the meter, absence of test report in the laboratory. 

12.            It has been proved on record that disputed amount is Rs.22,961/- which has been shown in the bill Ex.C1 dated 19.09.2020 for the period of 11.08.2018 to 07.08.2019 but OP have not placed on record any documentary proof to prove its case and also failed to convince this Commission that on what basis this bill has been issued by the OP to the complainant. Hence, we are of the considered view that the OP had issued the said disputed bill Ex.C1 on the basis of presumption and assumption and not as per the actual consumption. Hence the demand of the OP on the basis of higher units shown in the bill Ex.C1 dated 19.09.2020 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. However, OP can demand the consumption charges after taking average of meter reading of succeeding six months when meter was installed.

13.           In view of the above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to overhaul the account of complainant and adjust all the paid bills according to the average of meter-reading of succeeding six months from the disputed bill dated on 19.09.2020 i.e. for the period of 11.08.2018 to 07.08.2019 by receiving the consumption charges without imposing any surcharge and penalty. In case of any amount out of demanded amount is deposited by the complainant, same may also be refunded or adjusted in the account of the complainant. OPs are also directed to issue the subsequent electricity bills as per the actual electricity consumption for the period which was not paid by the complainant due to the disputed bill amount remains, if any. On issuing fresh bills complainant is also bound to clear the same. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced

Dated:18.01.2022                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

  Member                   Member