Haryana

StateCommission

A/48/2021

RAJINDER SINGH SAINI - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

18 Sep 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.48 of 2021

                   Date of Institution:08.03.2021

Reserved for Orders:-21.08.2024

Date of Pronouncement:18.09.2024

 

Rajinder Singh Sani S/o Shri Shish Ram R/o H.No.695/22, Bharatpuri, Kath Mandi, Sonepat

 

…Appellant

Versus

 

 

1.      UHBVN Ltd., Industrial Area Sonepat through its SDO.

 

2.      UHBVN Ltd., Industrial Area, Sonepat (Fazilpur) through its Executive Engineer.

 

…Respondents

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

                   Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Appellant-Rajinder Singh Saini in person.

                   Shri Madan Mohan, Lineman, as authorized representative on behalf of the respondents.

 

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          Complainant-Appellant-Rajinder Singh Saini, has filed the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for challenging the order dated 27.01.2021 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sonepat whereby complaint filed by himwas disposed offthe complaint by issuing following directions:-

“Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to overhaul the account of the complainant for the last six months prior to the date of replacement of the meter.  At the time of overhauling the account of the complainant, the respondents shall consider  the reading of three bimonthly bills of new electricity meter and after overhauling the account, the respondents shall issue the revised bill to the complainant, which  shall be paid by the complainant.  It is also directed to complainant to deposit the amount of revised bill with the respondents and if it is found that the complainant has paid the excess amount to the respondents for the overhauling period, in that event, the respondents shall adjust the said excess amount in the future bills of the complainant. With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.”

2.      The brief facts of the case as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is having electricity account No.8808930000/old account No.2251104UIA301025 and his consumption of electricity was very low and the meter of the complainant was not working properly. On 31.01.2019, the complainant moved an application for checking/replacement of meter.The said application was marked to Sh.Rajat JE, and Sh.Jagdish Kumar ALM made a noting on the application that “display was not working properly” and the bills were issued by the department on average basis, whereas the actual reading of the meter of the complainant was very less.  The complainant requested the OPs to replace the meter, but no action was taken by the OPs. On 17.09.2019, he received a message that meter was OK and his request was cancelled by the department. The complainant  received bill for the month of September 2019 for Rs.2874/- and bill for the month of November 2019 for Rs.3216/- respectively on average basis.  He again paid the bill under protest to avoid disconnection of meter.  The OPs regularly harassed the complainant by not replacing the meter and sending the bills on average basis. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant prayed that OPs be directed to replace the meter and overhaul the account of complainant w.e.f. December 2018 to till date and to refund the amount received in excess by OPs alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., and also to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

3.      Notice being issued, OPsput in appearance and filed written statement, submitting that they have replaced the meter of the complainant vide LL-1 No.995/44 dated 16.01.2020.  At the time of  checking, meter was found installed outside the house on pole. At the time of checking  meterwas found on standby mode and display showing 02.88 KVA (MDI) only, so meter reading was not verified. So meter packed in the cardboard box in the presence of Rajender Singh & checking team. Packed meter sealed with Khakhi Tape and sent to M&T Lab Rohtak for verification reading and accuracy of the meter. Supply restored with new OK energy meter with Sr. No.92896514, Make-L&T and capacity 10-60 Amp. Reading-01 Kwh. The opposite parties after receiving the lab report will overhaul the bills on average basis of the complainant. The OPs have denied all other allegations made in the complaint. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat, (In short “District Consumer Commission”) disposed off the complaint vide impugned order dated 27.01.2021 and relevant portion of the order is mentioned in para No.1 of the order.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      We have heard Appellant-Rajinder Singh Saini in person as well as Shri Madan Mohan, Lineman, as authorized representative of the respondents. With their kind assistance the entire record of appeal and that of complaint alongwith Ex.C-1 to C-10 and Ex. D-1 to D-21 werethoroughly perused andexamined.

7.      Rajinder Singh Saini complainant-appellant in person vehemently argued thatthe District Consumer Commission has ignored the facts that lab report of the old electricity meter of the appellant/complainant issued on dated 09.11.2020 in which it shows that the meter become closed with the reading 5652.1 units and when it was got checked in the lab of respondents, the meter showed 7206.8 units reading and the difference was 1554.7.Accordingly from February 2019 to 16.01.2020, the amount should be charged on the meter reading with 1554.7 units.  The learned District Consumer Commission has not ordered for overhauling the account for the disputed period as prayed for.  The complainant is entitled to seek overhaul for the entire account of the complainant for the period the respondents have issued the bill on average basis. The complainant-appellant was also entitled to refund the 2500 units amount, which was illegally recovered by the OPs from the complainant on average basis.

8.      On the contrary, Shri Madan Mohan, Lineman, as authorized representative of the respondents vehemently argued that on the request of the complainant, OPs-respondents have replaced the meter of the complainant vide LL-1 No.995/44 dated 16.01.2020. At the time of  checking of the meter, installed outside the house of PCC pole, the meter display was found on standby mode. Meter display showing 02.88 KVA (MDI) only, so meter reading was not verified.  The meter of the complainant was removed and sent to M&T Lab Rohtak for verification of reading and accuracy of the meter.  As per M&T Lab report, the display was 5652.1 units and no other abnormality found in meter on internal side of meter. The OPs have rightly overhauled the account of the complainant for the last six months prior to the date of replacement of the meter.  The complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed for by him.

9.      It is not disputed that on the request of the complainant, OPs-respondents have replaced the meter of the complainant vide LL-1 No.995/44 dated 16.01.2020. At the time of  checking of the meter, installed outside the house of PCC pole, the meter display was found on standby mode. Meter display showing 02.88 KVA (MDI) only, so meter reading was not verified.  The meter of the complainant was removed and sent to M&T Lab Rohtak for verification.  As per M&T Lab report dated 09.11.2020, the display was 5652.1 units and no other abnormality found in meter on internal side of meter.  Accuracy of meter checked and found with in permissible limit.   It is also clarified that the process of above checking has been videographed and the recorded video was preserved in the computer available for one year in the office of OPs.  As per checking report Ex.D-3,  supply of the meter was restored with new OK energy meter with serial No.92896514. Perusal of the checking report shows that the owner of the house was present at the time of checking and received copy of checking report.  Since, the complainant was duly and appropriately compensated by the District Consumer Commission, the complainant was not entitled for the claim amount as prayed for. The learned District Consumer Commission has rightly disposed off the complaint of the complainant. The State Consumer Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of learned District Consumer Commission. Hence the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

10.  

11.    A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act,2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for  perusal of the parties.

12.    File be consigned to record room.

 

Date of Pronouncement   Manjula         S.P.Sood                  T.P. S. Mann

18.09.2024                            Member                 Judicial Member         President

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)