Haryana

Panchkula

CC/311/2016

NARESH KUMAR SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL & OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

09 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                        

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	311of 2016
Date of Institution	:	22.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	09.10.2017

 

Naresh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Deen Dayal resident of H.No. 1136, Sector 21, Panchkula.

                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

1.     M/s UHBVN Vidyut Sadan C-16, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2.     SE (OP) circle UHBVN, Ambala.

3.     XEN (OP) Division UHBVN, # No. 517-18 Power Colony Panchkula.

4.     SDO (OP) Sub Division UHBVNL, Power Colony Industrial Area Panchkula.

                                                          ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.

                        Ms.Alka Joshi, Adv., for the Ops.

 

 

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

 

The complainant, a retiree from the Govt.of Haryana, is a consumer of electricity with account No.27PS462522. for the period 20.5.2015 to 20.7.2015, the complainant was billed for Rs. 58,723/- for utilization of 7703 units of electricity. Alleging that the meter had either “incidentally jumped or run very fast” during the relevant period, the complainant challenged the meter reading and deposited an amount of Rs. 300/- as the fee therefor. On the directions of OP NO.4 the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on the very day the former gave the direction.

2.         The electricity meter was replaced with a new meter on 27.8.2015 and “ the faulty meter” was sent to M & T lab, Dhulkot, Ambala City. But “ the lab could not give its finding/result of inspection due to display defective in the meter”.

3.         Thereafter, the complainant was billed for Rs. 93477/- for consumption of 5199 units of electricity for the billing cycle 20.7.2015 to 20.9.2015. In response to a query made by the complainant (vide his letter dated 20.4.2016), the OP No.4 replied on 3.5.2016 that the billing has been done “on average basis”. In view of the fact that the meter had been replaced on complaint, “ the average consumption was to be taken into account either on the basis of reading of new meter or preceding six months of disputed bill”. The complainant nonetheless, deposited an amount of Rs. 17,000/- on the direction of OP No.4.

4.         Like wise, the complainant was billed on the higher side for the duration 21.11.2015 to 20.1.2016 (10586 units) and for the period 20.1.2016 to 20.3.2016 (Rs.17983/- i.e. Rs. 12,188/- as arrear and Rs. 1680/- as sundry debitor.

5.         The complainant, thereafter, brought the fact of excessive billing and the non-chelant attitude of the OPs to the notice of the Consumer Redressal Grievances Forum, UHBVNL on 20.4.2016 (Annexure-P11). The Secretary of the Forum ordered OP No.3 to take necessary action in the matter. The X-EN concluded in the report that “ As per meter recorder the reading recorded 26913 in the billing cycle August 2015 in meter blank and such billing carried out during 10/15 & 12/15 was on average basis which has been rectified on actual consumption recorded by new meter installed at site & refund of Rs. 79137/- vide SC  & AR No.77/71 dated 19.01.2016 adjusted in the consumer account from the above facts and consumption data of three years of consumer there is huge variation in consumption which varies from 182 to 1500 and it might be case of accumulation and is liable to pay by the consumer.”

 

6.         The complainant repeatedly pleaded with the Secretary of the Forum to act on the report of X-EN. But the later only asked the  SDO/XEN/SE to redress the grievance, but they did not take any action, thereby impelling the complainant to file this complaint. The allegation of the complainant is that he had no option  but to file this complaint as the OPs did not overhaul/recast the account “ on the basis of consumption pattern of new meter and pattern of average consumption of last three years ( of disputed period)”.

7.         The OPs, challenged the maintainability of the complaint and the locus standi of the complainant to file it and also averred that the complainant is estopped, by his act and conduct from filing this complaint. While accusing the complainant of having concealed the fact of his obtained refund of an amount of Rs. 1,69,565/- in the month of February, 2016 following the correction of (the previous bill) when (the department found error).

8.         The complainant tendered affidavit Annexure C-A along with documentation Annexure C1 to C8 into evidence, while the OPs tendered affidavit Annexure RX alongwith documentation Annexure R1 and R2 into evidence.

9.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10.        Learned Counsel appearing for the OPs, argued  at the very outset, that the complaint deserves to be rejected as the complainant has concealed the fact of his having received a refund following overhauling of the  account.

11.        The plea deserves to be negated because the complainant did aver ( in the course of Para fourteen of the complaint) that the OP No.4 “ has actually refunded Rs. 79,137/- on 19.1.2016). There may be variation regarding the amount refunded or the date thereof, it is not a case in which the complainant can be validly accuse of concealment.

12.        A conjunctive perusal of the pleadings averred by the parties and the documentation annexed therewith would indicate that the OPs have not been able to pointedly controvert the allegations by the complainant that the meter was faulty. It may be noticed that it is the averment by the OPs themselves that the account was overhauled and a large amount refunded to the complainant.

13.        It is beyond the pale of controversy that the meter was replaced on the complaint of the complainant and it was sent to the lab at Dhulkot for testing. There is a categorical averment in the course of Para No.4 of the complaint that “ as intimated by the SDO (OP) (Opposite Party No.4) the lab could not give its findings/result of inspection due to display defective in the meter”. The corresponding  para of the written statement does not controvert the averment about the intimation by the SDO (OP). The reply only  avers that “it is wrong that the lab could not give its findings/result of inspection due to display defective in the meter as alleged.”

14.        Mere denial aforementioned does not amount to anything meaningful. It was for the OPs to offer a categorical denial of the averred intimation and further the Ops ought to have produced the report by M & T Lab Dhulkot, to controvert what had been averred by the complainant.

15.        Averments of determinative hue made by the complainant in the course of Paras no.14,15 and 16 were not pointedly controverted by the Ops.  The averments above mentioned are adequate enough to determine the controversy in the complaint and the non offering of a pointed denial thereof  validates an inference that the Ops have not denied the averments  and these are enforced to have been concealed to be correct.

16.        We would accordingly allow the complaint and order that:

1. The Ops shall overhaul-recast the energy account of the complainant on the basis of average consumption for the rule formulation based duration and announce the result thereof to the later by a transparent documentation;
2. The OPs shall pay an  amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency of service and also mental agony and harassment caused to him. and   
3. The Ops shall pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as the cost of litigation. The quantification of the cost of litigation has been done in view of the fact that the complainant filed and handled the complaint in person and did not incur any expenditure on engaging a counsel.

It is to state the obvious that the amount paid by the complainant and the amount refunded by the OPs shall be taken into account in the determination of liability.

         Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

09.10.2017    JAGMOHAN SING      ANITA KAPOOR       DHARAM PAL

                     MEMBER                        MEMBER              PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                    ANITA KAPOOR      

                                    MEMBER