Haryana

Ambala

CC/236/2022

Ravi Motors - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Rohit Garg

18 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	236 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	22.06.2022
Date of decision	:	18.12.2024

Ravi Motors, opposite Bus Stand, Ambala Cantt., District Ambala (Haryana) through its owner/proprietor Shri VIJAY GUPTA aged about 75 years son of Late Shri Som Nath Gupta resident of H. No.274, Sector 8, Ambala City now represented by the legal heir of deceased owner/proprietor late Shri VIJAY GUPTA namely Brij Bala Gupta.

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Sub-Divisional Officer, A12- No. II, Ambala Cantt., District Ambala (Haryana)
2. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Executive Engineer, Operation Division, A12- No.II, Ambala Cantt., District Ambala (Haryana)   

  ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                       Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Rohit Garg, 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 withdraw the illegal demand raised by the OPs vide bill for the month of May, 2022 for the period from 08.03.2022 to 11.05.2022 for an amount of Rs.1,19,301/- and charge for the actual electricity consumed by the complainant

ii. To pay Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in providing service.

3. To pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

4. To pay Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.

         

382.  

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit. 

 

2.           In this complaint, it is stated that this is a second complaint filed by the complainant before this Hon’ble Commission as first complaint filed against the OPs, on the same contents was withdrawn due to technical error on 21.06.2022, with liberty to file afresh. This complaint has been filed by the proprietor of the Ravi Motors (hereinafter referred as complainant), in this complaint, it is stated that the complainant firm is Authorized Service Station of Maruti. It is a proprietorship firm, which is run by its proprietor for earning his livelihood. An electricity meter/connection bearing Account No.A12KW012094-old number and new account No.5335700000, installed in the name of the said firm and the electricity meter is installed outside the premises of Ravi Motors situated Opposite Stand, Savoy Estate, Ambala Cantt. which is easily accessible independently by the meter reader of the OPs to not the meter readings. Complainant without any default was paying all the bills of this above said electric connection. From the previous electricity bills it is evident that the complainant was consuming the electricity against the said connection in a very moderate way. On 07.02.2022, he had seen sparking in the electric meter and it got damaged due to heavy rain. Complainant moved an application to the OP No.2 for immediate action, its officials visited the site and inspected the meter and declared that the meter was not functioning and they installed a new electric meter and sent the old meter for testing to the laboratory. Complainant received electricity bill for the period from 08.03.2022 to 11.05.2022 for a sum of Rs.1,19,301/-. Complainant approached and requested the OPs to check the meter as he was consuming the complainant electricity in a very moderate way since long as is evident from the record maintained in the HI office of OPs. Complainant also told the employees of the OPs that the electricity meter is not working properly since the past three/four electricity bill cycles. Instead of acceding to the genuine request, the OPs threatened the complainant either to pay the bill amount otherwise the electricity connection will be disconnected and criminal action will be taken against the complainant. It is further stated that the officials of OPs had taken wrong readings and noted down faulty readings as per their convenience resulting into raising an illegal and arbitrary bill against the complainant. By doing so,  the OPs have not only committed deficiency in providing service but also indulged into unfair trade practice, hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, no jurisdiction, no cause of action, no locus standi and not come with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts etc. On merits, it has been stated that the electric connection of the complainant is of non-domestic supply (NDS)category and having load of 17.60 KWA.  Complainant moved an application dated 07.02.2022 stating therein that due to rain the workshop meter sparked and got damaged. Accordingly, meter was checked, LL-1 report was prepared on the site, which was duly signed by the complainant. The observations are “Site checked and found that display defective-meter reading is not available. OP installed a new meter and sent the old meter for checking to the laboratory. Checking report was prepared in the presence of the complainant and SDO/JE AFM Ambala Cantt and SDO/M& T Lab, UHBVN Dhulkot which is according to rules and regulations and signed by the complainant. As a matter of fact, the complainant is liable to pay the charges for the consumption of electricity. Notice was issued to pay the bill amount but the complainant instead of making the payment has filed this false complaint. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Despite availing opportunities, when the proprietor of the complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant only) failed to tender evidence, his evidence stood closed vide order dated 18.09.2023. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Pardeep Kumar, JE, Sub Div. Bilaspur, District Yamunanagar, UHBVNL and Shri  Atitosh Kumar Singh, SDO (OP), Sub Division Kesri, UHBVNL, District Ambala as Annexure OP-A and OP-B respectively alongwith documents as Annexure OP-1 to OP-12 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 bill amount, for the period from 08.03.2022 to 11.05.2022 for an amount of Rs.1,19,301/-, despite the fact that proprietor of the complainant firm had been using the electricity in a moderate manner and was paying the bills regularly, which can be seen in the earlier electricity bills, the OPs are deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice.  
7.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs submitted that since the OPs have got the meter in question checked from the M & T Lab, Dhulkote and that too in the presence of the complainant, which was found to be OK, whereby the reading retrieved was to the extent of 63191 KWH, 761621 KVAH and no tempering was found, as is evident from the affidavit, Annexure OP-B filed by the SDO (OP), Sub Division Kesri, UHBVNL District Ambala. The said report was never challenged by the complainant, as such, the OPs were right in raising the demand of Rs.1,19,213/-, towards the electricity consumed by the complainant for the period from 08.03.2022 to 11.05.2022, vide bill dated 11.05.2022, Annexure OP-8.
8.           First coming to the objection taken by the OPs that the electricity connection of the complainant being non-domestic, the consumer complaint is not maintainable, in the complaint it is stated that the proprietor of the complainant is running Service Station, for earning his livelihood. Admittedly, complainant is running a proprietorship concern. There is nothing on record that proprietor of the complainant firm is doing the business at a very large scale by employing number of persons with an intent to earn huge profit and is not doing business, by way of self employment with a view to earn his livelihood. Therefore, the complainant falls within the definition of consumer as envisaged u/s Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Objection taken by the OPs therefore is rejected.
9.           Now, the moot question which falls for consideration in the present case is, as to whether, the OPs were justified in raising bill dated 11.05.2022, Annexure OP-8, for the period from 08.03.2022 to 11.05.2022, amounting to Rs.1,19,213/-, from the complainant in respect of consumption of 3762 units via the meter in question or not? Complainant has alleged that the meter in question was defective, as a result of which, it showed excessive reading towards consumption of electricity, from the actual consumption. Whereas, the stand of the OPs is that the complainant was asked to pay the electricity charges for the electricity actually consumed by him and they have placed on record a detailed Checking Report of Meter dated 24.02.2022, Annexure OP-6 issued by the Expert Panel of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Office of Assistant Engineer, Meter Testing Laboratory, Dhulkote, wherein it was clearly opined that On Physical Verification meter found N.V.; Reading retrieved as 63191 KWH, 761621 KVAH and that no tempering inside the meter was found. 
10.           It is further significant to add here that the above-said checking of the meter in question was done in the presence of the complainant, as the said report has been signed by him also, alongwith other experts, Annexure OP-6, further shows that a very detailed report has been made after checking the meter in question by the said Officers/Officials and that too in the presence of the complainant, wherein it has been opined that no tempering  has been found inside the meter in question. Furthermore, we did not find anything on this report that any protest has been raised by the complainant while signing it or even thereafter. At the same time, not even a single evidence contrary to Checking Report of Meter dated 24.02.2022, Annexure OP-6 has been placed on record by the complainant. There is also nothing on record that the complainant has raised any objection in getting the meter in question checked from the M & T Lab, UHBVN, Dhulkote. If the said report did not come in favour of the complainant, it does not mean that he will not accept the same, especially, when nothing contrary to the same has been place on record by him.
11.           In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that because the complainant has failed to prove his case, as such, no relief can be given to him. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost.  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:- 18.12.2024.

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