Haryana

Ambala

CC/214/2018

Tejpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

12 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.         :  214 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution           :  11.07.2018

                                                          Date of decision     :  12.12.2019.

 

Tejpal Singh son of Sh. Ajaib Singh aged about 48 years, resident of H.No.65, Punjabi Bagh, Ambala Cantt.

          ……. Complainant.

 

1.       S.D.O. UHBVN Sub Division Office Adhoya, Barara, District Ambala.

 

2.       XEN, UHBVN, 12, Cross Road, Ambala Cantt.

                                                               ….…. Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.          

                            

Present:       Shri Saravjeet Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri C.S. Bindra, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (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 overhaul the account of the complainant from 30.11.2016 to the actual date of change of the previous defective meter of the complainant.
2. To waive off the entire surcharge levied by the OPs.
3. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
4. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.
5.  

Any other relief whichthis Hon’ble Forum may deemfit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had obtained an domestic supply electricity connection No.0654110000 with a sanctioned load of 5.8 KW from OP No.2, working under the Administrative Control of OP no.1. Complainant was paying regular bills. Consumption data of electricity by the complainant from 31.03.2016 to 21.04.2018 is as follows:-

Billing Month	Billing Period	Consumption
June, 2016	31.03.2016 to 31.05.2016	402 Units
August, 2016	31.05.2016 to 31.07.2016	319 Units
October, 2016	31.07.2016 to 30.09.2016	307 Units
March, 2017	30.09.2016 to 30.11.2016	657 Units
April, 2017	30.11.2016 to 31.03.2017	6819 Units
June, 2017	31.03.2017 to 31.05.2017	607 Units
August, 2017	31.05.2017 to 31.07.2017	1103 Units
October, 2017	31.07.2017 to 30.09.2017	888 Units
December, 2017	30.09.2017 to 21.12.2017	161 Units
February, 2018	21.12.2017 to 18.02.2018	366 Units
April, 2018	01.03.2018 to 21.04.2018	1243 Units

 

During peak summer season consumption of electricity was of 1103 units i.e. from 31.05.2017 to 31.07.2017, which clearly shows that the bill for the month of April, 2017 for the period from 30.11.2016 to 31.03.2017 of 6819 units is incorrect and not as per the actual consumption. After the bill for the month of April, 2017, complainant realized that the meter installed against his electricity connection was not working properly as the same was running fast and having jumping problem. Complainant immediately contacted the OP No.2 and requested for checking of the meter and to issue the correct bill for the month of April, 2017. OP No.2 assured the complainant that he would look into the matter and do the needful accordingly. The OP No.2, told the complainant that he could pay the bill after the correction of the bill by the Nigam. Thereafter, the OPs issued the bill, for the month of June, 2017 by levying Rs.57,235.4l/- as arrears. The OP No.2, neither rectified the bill nor checked the meter. The complainant again approached the OP No.2, but of no avail. Complainant moved an application dated 07.08.2017, before the OP No.2 for change of meter. Against the said application, the OP No.2 ordered the complainant to deposit the fees of Rs.340/- for checking the accuracy of the meter by installing a check meter parallel to the existing meter. He deposited the fee of Rs.340/-, after which the check meter was ordered to be installed by the OP No.2 vide SJO No.8/464 dated 17.08.2017. Complainant kept waiting for the installation of the meter and in the mean time the OPs served upon him the bills for the month of August, 2017, October 2017 & December 2017. In order to keep his electricity connection in continuation and on the instructions of the OP No.2 who assured that the matter will be resolved shortly, he deposited the part payment of Rs.2466/- vide receipt dated 11.09.2017 and Rs.8,000/- vide receipt dated 28.11.2017 on the instructions of OP No.2. Thereafter, the complainant received a bill for the month of February, 2018 of Rs.25,395/- for consumption of 3325 units. The said bill was not correct as it was not as per the actual consumption as new reading was not mentioned in the said bill and the bill was based on conjectures and surmises. On the receipt of the said bill, he contacted the OP No.2 and requested to rectify this bill and the previous bills, from the month of April, 2017, onwards. On the request of the complainant, the OP No.2 verified the matter and told him that the meter had already been changed vide MCO dated 17.08.2017, which was effected on 07.10.2017. It was revealed by the OP No.2 that at the time of removal of the defective meter it exhibited the reading as 18228. Complainant got shocked as the meter was changed by the OP No.2 without getting its accuracy checked by installing check meter parallel to it. Complainant therefore requested the OP No.2 to overhaul his account for the period from 30.11.2016 to 07.10.2017 i.e. the period covered under the bill of April, 2017, till the date of change of the meter. The change of the meter by the OPs confirms that the previous meter was defective. But the OP No.2 by taking an about turn from his earlier stand, had refused to correct the bill. Non availability of the checking report of the meter, further confirms that the meter was defective. The bill dated 27.02.2018, was however rectified by the OP No.2 by mentioning new reading as 18228 and the consumed units as 366. Against the said bill dated 27.02.2018, the OP No.2, directed the complainant to deposit the part payment of Rs.20,000/- which was duly deposited by the complainant vide receipt dated 21.03.2018. Thereafter, vide bill dated 28.04.2018, complainant was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.63,941/-. As per the information given by OP No.2 on bill dated 27.02.2018, the new meter was installed on 07.10.2017. As per bill dated 28.04.2018, reading of the newly installed meter was 1244 units on 21.04.2018, which clearly shows that the consumption of electricity for the period from 07.10.2017 to 21.04.2018 was 1244 units only. On the receipt of the said bill, the complainant contacted the OP No.2 and requested to overhaul his account pertaining to the period, for which the meter remained defective, but he refused to do the same and threatened him to disconnect the electricity supply, in case the bill amount had not been deposited by him. The said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; not coming to this Forum with clean hands, cause of action and locus-standi. On merits, it is stated that the meter of the complainant was working properly and the OP No.2, had rightly issued the bill of April, 2017 as per the units consumed by him. The OP No.2 had also issued bills to the complainant after the month of April, 2017, but he never complained regarding fast running or jumping of the meter. It was the duty of the complainant to pay the bills regularly, but he failed to do so. There is no need for the correction of the bill for the month of April, 2017, as it was rightly issued by the OP No.2 on the basis of the reading of the meter, which was running properly. Further stated that complainant approached the OP No.2, for the first time in the month of August, 2017, with a request to change the meter. A new meter was installed in the month of November, 2017, after completing all the official formalities. The OP No.2, issued the bill for the month of February, 2018 of Rs.25,395/- for 3325 units, on average basis, as the meter of the complainant was changed with the last reading noted as 18228. After that the new bill dated 28.04.2018, for the period from 21.12.2017 to 01.03.2018 (old meter reading) and 01.03.2018 to 21.04.2018 (new meter reading) was issued, after adjusting the amount of Rs. Rs.25,395/-. Thus, the complainant is liable to pay the same. The OPs had rightly issued the bill of April, 2017 and there is no need of any rectification in it. Even, there is no need to overhaul the account of the complainant for the period from 30.11.2016 to 07.10.2017. Rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant are denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

3.                To prove the version, the complainant along with his counsel tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-9 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Shri Neelanshu Dubey, SDO, Sub Division No.1 UHBVNL, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP/A alongwith documents Annexure OP1 to OP11 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Vide bill dated 25.04.2017, Annexure OP1, it is evident that the OPs raised the demand of Rs.55,601/-, to be paid on or before the due date and of Rs.57,235/-, after the due date. From the application dated 07.08.2017 Annexure C-3, it is apparent that the complainant had made a complaint regarding fast running of the meter and requested for its replacement and sending it to the lab for testing. From the said application, it is also evident that the complainant had paid Rs.340/- as fee and vide SJO No.8/464 dated 17.08.2017, check meter was ordered to be installed. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the OPs without checking the old defective meter had replaced the same with a new meter. The learned counsel for the OPs has contended that the meter of the complainant was working properly and on the request of the complainant, a new meter was installed vide MCO dated 17.08.2017. From the Annexure OP-11, it is clear that the OPs have removed the old meter and installed a new meter. However, the OPs have not placed on record any document to prove that the old/removed meter was duly checked and found OK. In the absence of any checking report it cannot be ascertained that the old/removed meter was working properly and the complainant had consumed 6819 units of the electricity for the period from 30.11.2016 to 31.03.2017. By not checking the old/removed meter, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. The complainant cannot be penalised for the fault of the OPs. Facing with this situation, we are of the view that the OPs shall prepare the bill for consumption of electricity by the complainant for the period from 30.11.2016 to 31.03.2017 as per sales circular 61/2013, issued by the Chief General Manager/Commercial UHBVN, wherein it is mentioned that “in case the domestic electric meter was found defective, sticky, dead stop, burnt, faulty or inoperative, premises locked, the electricity bill be prepared in the following manner:-     

1. On the basis of the consumption recorded during the corresponding period of the previous year when the meter was functional and recording correctly.
2. In case the same is not available, then on the basis of average consumption of the past six months immediately preceding the date of the meter being found/reported defective.
3. If period of installation of meter is less than six months, then the consumer shall be billed on the basis of average consumption of the period from the date of installation of the meter to the date of the meter being found/reported defective.
4. In case no previous correct consumption date is available, owing to new connection or otherwise, the consumer shall be billed (provisionally) for the units as mentioned in the table below.

It is not the case of the OPs that the consumption of same months of the preceding year is not available with them. Therefore, they are entitled to get the electricity consumption charges from the complainant as per Clause 1(a) of the said sales circular, without charging any surcharge/penalty etc., on account of non payment of the total amount of the bill dated 25.04.2017 for the period from 30.11.2016 to 31.03.2017. Since, the OPs by not checking the old/removed meter of the complainant have committed deficiency in service, therefore they are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.   

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and quash the bill dated 25.04.2017 to the extent of consumption of 6189 units of the electricity by the complainant for the period from 30.11.2016 to 31.03.2017 and direct the OPs to issue a fresh bill as per Clause 1(a) of the Sales Circular No.61/2013 without charging any surcharge/penalty etc. and overhaul the account of the complainant upto date. It is made clear that the amount already deposited by the complainant if found to be in excess, then the same be adjusted in the future bills. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him along with Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. The Ops are further directed to comply with the order within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies 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 on :12.12.2019.

 

 

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

              Member                                   Member                       President