Haryana

Karnal

CC/723/2019

Amardeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitan Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

28 Sep 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                 Complaint No.723 of 2019

                                                 Date of instt.23.10.2019

                                                 Date of Decision 28.09.2021.

 

Amardeep son of Shri Dalel Singh, resident of house no.986, sector-4, Housing Board Colony, Karnal (Haryana)

 

                                          …….Complainant.

                                         Versus

 

1.    Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., office of Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana.

2.    Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.    

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

 

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

                  Shri Amit Munjal, counsel for opposite parties.

 

                  (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

              The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is consumer of OPs and having the electricity connection bearing account no.9349020000 and meter no.GP4458211 and regularly paying the energy charges to the OPs. After installing the smart meter on the poll, the complainant received electricity bill for the month of August, 2019 from the OPs to the tune of Rs.62933/-. In this electricity bill Rs.42301.97 was shown as arrears outstanding and Rs.18856.48 was shown as charges for current cycle. The complainant consumed 2845.32 units as per this bill. The complainant has paid all previous bills and there was no outstanding amount in the account of complainant. Complainant moved an application to the concerned SDO to correct the electricity bill but the electricity bills of the complainant has not been corrected after repeated requests. Thereafter, complainant received a bill for the month of October, 2019 from the OPs, which is of Rs.68909/- in which Rs.62933/- was shown as arrear. It is further alleged that an amount of Rs.42301.97 shown as arrears outstanding in the electricity bill is wrongly added by the OPs and whenever complainant requested the OPs to correct the bill but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.  In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.           On notice, OPs appeared and filed written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the old electricity meter of the complainant was replaced with the smart electricity meter as per the policy of the Nigam then at that time the reading in the meter was 26591 and the complainant has paid the bill upto the reading 21500 which is evident from the previous electricity bills, as such the complainant is liable to pay the electricity charges of the balance units which comes to 5091 hence the bill for that units has been issued to the complainant. In this bill there is no previous arrear, rather it is regarding the electricity units consumed by the complainant. It is further pleaded that since the amount in question relates to the electricity supply consumed by the complainant and as such there is no question arises of redressing any grievances of the complainant. It is further pleaded that since the complainant has not been paying the bill in question and as such the interest and current energy charges and surcharge is being debited in the account of the complainant and bills have been rightly issued to him. It is further pleaded that amount of Rs.42301.97 is not the previous arrears, rather it is the actual consumption charges. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.           Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.           Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, electricity bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, copy of application dated 30.09.2019 regarding correction of bill Ex.C4, bills and receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C10, Aadhar card Ex.C11 and closed the evidence on 04.02.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.           On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence, affidavit of Aditya Shukla SDO Ex.OP1/A, copy of ledger Ex.OP1, electricity bills Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP21 and closed the evidence on 02.09.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.           We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.           Complainant while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that he is consumer of OPs. Complainant received electricity bill for the month of August, 2019 from the OPs to the tune of Rs.62933/-, which was very huge. Complainant moved an application to the concerned SDO to correct the electricity bill but the electricity bills of the complainant has not been corrected after repeated requests. Thereafter, complainant received a bill for the month of October, 2019 from the OPs, which is to the tune of Rs.68909/- in which Rs.62933/- was shown as arrear.  He further contended that the amount of Rs.42301.97 shown as arrears outstanding in the electricity bill is wrongly added by the OPs. Complainant requested the OPs to correct the bill but OPs did not do so. Hence, complainant prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.           Per contra, learned counsel of OPs while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that old electricity meter of the complainant was replaced with the smart electricity meter and at that time the reading in the meter was 26591 and the complainant has paid the bill upto the reading 21500, as such the complainant is liable to pay the electricity charges of the balance units. Hence, learned counsel for OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

9.           Admittedly, the old electricity meter of the complainant was replaced with a smart electricity meter in the year 2019.  As per the version of the complainant, at the time of replaced the old meter there was no outstanding electricity bills of the complainant as the complainant had already cleared all the consumption charges.

10.         Disputed electricity bill is Ex.OP12. As per the said bill the old reading from the period 20.02.2019 to 06.04.2021 was 21,500 units and new reading was 26,591 units.  OPs have issued said electricity bill for the tune of Rs.42,501/- and also shown current cycle charges amounting to Rs.42,619/- As per the version of the OPs, complainant had failed to clear the said bill till date and the said bill had been issued by the department as per the actual consumption. On the other hand, complainant had taken a plea that there was nothing due at the time of replacing the old meter with the new smart meter.

11.         The onus to prove that the complainant had consumed the 5091 units for the period of 20.02.2019 to 06.04.2019 was upon the OPs but OPs have miserably failed to prove that the complainant had consumed the 5091 units for the aforesaid period by leading cogent and convincing evidence. OPs neither produced the old meter or report of any expert to ascertain that complainant had consumed the said electricity units for the period of two months.

12.         It is evident from the electricity bills Ex.OP5 to Ex.OP13 that nothing had been paid by the complainant towards the electricity bills issued by the OPs.  These bills pertained to the period from February, 2018 to August, 2020. It is also evident from the bill Ex.OP13, that the units consumed by complainant is only one unit and in bill Ex.OP14 the units consumed by the complainant shown as zero. It is not possible that complainant had consumed only one unit for the period mentioned in the abovesaid bills.

13.         It is very surprised that in electricity bill Ex.OP14, the current cycle charges amount has been shown as Rs.75,70,513.23 for the consumption of zero units and in the electricity bill Ex.OP13, OPs had done adjustment for the said amount without receiving a single penny from complainant. It appears that OPs had issued said bills in very casual way just in order to harass the complainant.

14.         It has been proved on record that disputed amount is Rs.42,619/- which has been shown in the bill Ex.OP12 for the period of 20.02.2019 to 06.04.2019 but OPs have not placed on record any documentary proof to prove its case and also failed to convince this Commission that on what basis this bill has been issued by the OPs to the complainant.. Hence, we are of the considered view that the OPs had issued the said disputed bill Ex.OP12 on the basis of presumption and assumption and not as per the actual consumption. Hence, the act of Ops amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  However, it is also not possible that complainant had not consumed the electricity during the disputed period.  

15.         In view of the above discussion and circumstances of the case, we dispose of the present complaint with the direction to the OPs to issue the fresh bill from the disputed period on the average basis and charged the same from the complainant without imposing any surcharge and penalty and complainant will bound to pay the same.  OPs are also directed to issue the subsequent electricity bills as per the actual electricity consumption for the period which were not paid by the complainant due to the disputed bill amount. On issuing fresh bills complainant is also bound to clear the same.  The parties concerned be communicated the order accordingly, and the file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:28.09.2021.    

                                                                    President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

       

 

                                        (Vineet Kaushik)               

                                        Member