BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Sanjeev Kumar Arora son of Sh. Baldev Rai, r/o 3-B, Aggarsain Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through S.D.O. UHBVN, Op. Sub Division no.II, near Punjab and Sind Bank, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt.
2. S.D.O., UHBVN Ltd. Op. Sub Division no.II, near Punjab and Sind Bank, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt.

  ….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

Present:-     Shri Rajeev Malik, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.                                                                                                                              Shri Sunny Sharma, 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 rectify the impugned bill Annexure C-1 and to replace the faulty meter.
2. To pay the compensation to the complainant of the Rs. 1,50,000/-,on account of causing mental agony and harassment, deficiency in service and on account of adopting unfair trade practice
3. To pay cost of litigation amounting to Rs.20,000/-.
4. To grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having an electricity connection (Domestic Connection) vide Account No. 1396500000 (Old a/c по. 2111501UMN103460) with Sub Division no.II, Ambala Cantt. vide which he had been consuming electricity as per sanctioned load and paying the electricity charges for the consumption of electricity to the OPs.  The average bi-monthly reading of consumption of electricity by the complainant comes to 100 to 400 units. In the month of June, 2021, the complainant received a Bill no.139657174340 dated 2.9.2021 amounting to Rs.1,83,736/- for 20957.8 Units (for 12 months of June 2020 to June 2021) (Annexure-C1) for above said electricity connection. The due date given by OPs for deposit of said bill was 9.9.2021. The complainant made several rounds to office of the OPs with a request to check the meter and to rectify the bill as the meter has jumped and he never consumed such huge units. On several requests by the complainant, the Ops installed a parallel meter and reading was same at low level of mere 12 units in 6 days, thus, it was told by the concerned official that high consumption was because of the meter jumping.  The demand of replacing the meter has been refused by the OPs and pressurized the complainant to pay Rs.50,000/- which is not possible for complainant to pay he being a poor person. The said old faulty meter is still installed in house of the complainant from which supply is being used by complainant. The complainant never indulged in unlawful activities of theft of electricity. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts and no locus standi etc.  On merits, while admitting the fact that the electric meter provided by the OPs is being used by the complainant at his premises and that they have issued the bill in dispute, it has been stated that  the complainant is irregularly paying the electricity charges and he is in huge arrears of electricity charges. The bills were raised as per the consumption of electricity by the complainant. OP No.2 rightly issued the bill dated 02.09.2021 for Rs.1,83,736/- with its due date on 09.09.2021. The last payment of Rs.7013/- was made by the complainant on 08.10.2020 with the Nigam and thereafter the OPs have been regularly issuing the bills to the complainant, but the complainant has failed to pay the electricity bills till 01.09.2021. 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 CW1/A, alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Ashish Chopra, Sub Division No.II, UHBVN, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP-1/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP-1 and OP-13 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by raising excessive bill dated 02.09.2021 to the tune of Rs.1,83,736/- for the period June 2020 to June 2021 (12 months), for alleged 20957.8 units and thereafter not redressing the grievance of the complainant either by sending the defective meter to the laboratory for ascertaining the defect therein nor by replacing the defective meter in question, the OPs are deficient in providing service. 
7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs submitted that correct bill for the period from June 2020 to June 2021 (12 months), for an amount of Rs. 1,83,736/- for 20957.8 units consumed by the complainant was sent to him, as the same was prepared on the basis of site verification of the meter in question by the concerned officer. He further submitted that the meter in question is working perfectly and as such, the complainant is liable to pay the demanded amount qua the electricity actually consumed by him.
8.           It is the definite case of the complainant that electricity bill dated 02.09.2021, Annexure C-1 and OP-9 was issued by the OPs, wherein, over and above the units consumed for the period from 26.08.2021 to 20.10.2021 i.e. 1262.70 units, the OPs also raised demand of Rs.1,83,736/- for alleged 20957.8 units for the period June 2020 to June 2021 (12 months), which is highly exaggerated on account of the reason that the meter in question was defective, as it was running very fast. The version of the complainant that he raised complaint with the OPs to the effect that the said meter is not working property for the period from June 2020 to June 2021 (12 months), except site verification of the premises of the complainant, to check the  meter in question, visually on 29.12.2020 (Annexure OP-1) and also by installing a parallel check-meter, no other steps were taken by the OPs to ascertain as to whether, the meter in question is actually defective, internally or not, for the period from June 2020 to June 2021 (12 months). At the same time, the OPs have miserably failed to place on record any document, wherefrom, it could be revealed that the complainant has actually consumed 20957.8 units for the period June 2020 to June 2021 (12 months). It is not the version of the OPs that this electricity connection during this period 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. There is nothing on record that on receipt of complaint from the complainant regarding defective meter resulting into issuance of excess bill aforesaid for the period from June 2020 to June 2021 (12 months), necessary steps to ensure that the meter is actually defective or not, have been taken by the OPs except site verification referred to above and installing a check-meter parallelly without carrying out any technical inspection, which in our considered opinion was not sufficient to come at any definite conclusion. On the other hand, on receipt of complaint from the complainant regarding defective meter showing consumption of excessive units, as a result of which huge bill was raised for the period from June 2020 to June 2021 (12 months),  it was required of the OPs to send the electricity meter installed in the premises of the complainant 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 even taken by the OPs in this case. In our considered view, in such a situation the complainant cannot be burdened to pay Rs.1,83,736/- for the period June 2020 to June 2021 (12 months), for alleged 20957.8 units followed by allied/sundry charges.
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 from June 2020 to June 2021 (12 months) 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…..”

10. Resultantly, the demand raised by the Ops vide electricity bill dated 02.09.2021, Annexure C-1, 

to the extent of Rs.1,83,736/- for alleged 20957.8 units for the period from June 2020 to June 2021 (12 months)

in respect of the electricity meter in ques5tion are qushed.

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

• To replace the meter in question with a new one, in perfect working condition.
• To raise fresh demand in respect of the electricity consumed by the complainant for the period from June 2020 to June 2021 (12 months) 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 the sales circular No.U-61/2013, referred to above, without levying any delayed interest or surcharge.
• To adjust the amount/sundry charges, if any, deposited by the complainant, qua the bill in dispute for the period from June 2020 to June 2021 (12 months), either before filing this complaint or during pendency of this complaint on the orders of this Commission, in the forthcoming bills.
• 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. 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:- 19.01.2024