Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 465.
Instituted on : 10.09.2019
Decided on : 10.12.2020.
Shri Niwas Khundia, age 60 years son of Giani Ram, resident of 1464/4 Sunaria Chowk, Sugar Mill Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- UHBVNL, through its Managing Director/Incharge, Panchkula.
- Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, UHBVNL, Rohtak.
- Executive Engineer, Operation Division, UHBVNL, Rohtak.
- SDO(Op.) S/Division No.2, UHBVNL, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.S. Kayat, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Paramjeet ALM for opposite parties.
ORDER
RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER:
1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that the complainant had taken electricity connection A/c No.2319750000 and he has been paying the electricity charges regularly and never defaulted for making the payment of any bill, but the respondent no.4 has sent a bill dated 4.9.2019 for the last 4 months, which is wrong and excessive reading has been shown. In this regard, the complainant went to the office of respondent no.4 for many times and requested to make necessary correction in the record as well as in the said bill but in vain. It is submitted that when the meter reading was done on 2.5.2019, the Units consumption were 11563 and lastly the meter reading was done on 4.9.2019, the Units consumption were 16094 and the difference of units are 4531. The last wrong and illegal bill is of Rs.35,053/-. The complainant requested the respondents to make necessary correction in the aforesaid bill dated 4.9.2019 and not to recover the above said amount from the complainant and not to disconnect the electricity connection but in vain and on dated 6.9.2019 they have finally refused to pay any heed to the request of the complainant. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make necessary correction in the bill dated 4.9.2019, record, not to recover any amount from the complainant in excess, not to disconnect his electricity connection, not to impose any penalty and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and litigation expenses etc. to the complainant.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement submitting therein that the complainant might be used electrical appliances during the Very Hot Session. It is also submitted that the consumption recorded in the meter is correct and genuine and meter is working properly. The bill issued is according to actual reading. It is further submitting the there is no deficiency in service on the part of department. It is prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence on dated 29.1.2020. On the other hand Shri Paramjeet ALM for opposite parties made a statement that the reply already filed be read as affidavit into evidence and tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and has closed his evidence on dated 09.10.2020.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case the complainant has challenged the bill dated 04.09.2019 placed on record as Ex.C1/Ex.R1 issued for the period 02.05.2019 to 04.09.2019 for a sum of Rs.35065/-. The contention of the complainant is that the alleged bill is excessive and he is not liable to pay the same. In this regard we have observed that firstly the bill has been issued for the period of 4 months due to which the higher unit rate has been calculated by the opposite parties, whereas the same should have been billed on the basis of monthly or bimonthly consumption. Moreover as per bill Ex.C1, the sanctioned load of the complainant is 2 KW whereas the units consumed shown in this bill for the period of 125 days is 4531.7 units. The respondents have not placed on record any document to prove that the complainant has used the electricity energy more than the sanctioned load during this period. Only MDI has been mentioned as 3.52KW but in support of this submission, the respondents have not placed on record any documentary or technical proof before this Commission. If the complainant has not consumed electricity energy more than the sanctioned load of 2KW, in that situation the consumption could not be so much high i.e. 4531 units for the period of 125 days. Meaning thereby, somehow there is a technical fault. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allowed the complaint with direction to the opposite parties to overhaul the bill of the complainant from the period 02.05.2019 to 04.09.2019 after taking the average consumption of last six months i.e. w.e.f. November 2018 to April 2018 and to issue the fresh bill to the complainant. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
10.12.2020.
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
…………………………….
Tripti Pannu, Member.
