Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 541
Instituted on : 26.11.2020.
Decided on : 24.06.2022.
AVH Health Care Pvt. Ltd. 330, Vinay Nagar, Delhi Bye Pass Road Rohtak through Dr. Amit Batra, Director.
……….………..Complainant.
Vs.
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub-Division Officer, Division No.1, Vidyut Bhawan, Power House, Rohtka through its S.D.O.
..…….……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Jagdish Khatri, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having an electricity connection vide account No.8309460214 having old account no.2241105UALQP0002 in the name of complainant. The complainant is engaged in providing medical services and running a hospital and the aforesaid electricity connection is being used for providing medical services to the society. The complainant has received an electricity bill No.830948932702 dated 09.11.2020 for the period 15.10.2020 to 07.11.2020 for an amount of Rs.1544776/- and in this bill an amount of Rs.697353/- was added as sundry charges and Rs.263088/- as reconnection charges in the aforesaid bill in addition to regular bill. The complainant has approached to the respondent and inquired about the reason of imposing the sundry charges wrongly and without any basis but no satisfactory reply was given by the respondent and the respondent refused to correct the bill and to receive the amount for the actual consumption made by the complainant after deducting the unnecessary sundry charges and other charges but the respondent refused to accede the request of the complainant. The act of opposite party of imposing the wrong, arbitrary and illegal sundry charges in the name of reconnection fee etc. is wrong, illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed not to claim the alleged sundry charges and reconnection charges and other charges wrongly added in the bill and opposite party be also restrained from initiating any action or proceedings against the complainant in any manner or to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant. It is further prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay compensation of Rs.200000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that complainant is consumer of respondent having A/c No.8309460214. It is further submitted that the electricity meter was checked by the team of M & P Division UHBVNL Rohtak on dated 16.03.2020 vide their report no.6305 dated 16.03.2020. The M& P staff in their joint checking has submitted that they have reported the matter to the respondent/opposite party SDO Op Sub Divn. No.1, UHBVN Rohtak regarding the slowness of meter by 17.86% and to charge the amount of slowness of meter. No extra amount has been charged from the consumer and he has only been charged for slowness of meter by 17.86% and the amount of slowness only has been debited in the consumer bill for Rs.530531/- shown in the bill against sundry column. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence on dated 09.09.2021. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW/A, Ex.RW/B, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 and has closed his evidence on dated 24.11.2021. At the time of arguments, ld. counsel has also placed on record a copy of letter ‘Annexure-JN-A’.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. The contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that the complainant had received an electricity bill No.830948932702 dated 09.11.2020 for the period 15.10.2020 to 07.11.2020 for an amount of Rs.1544776/- and in this bill an amount of Rs.697353/- was added as sundry charges and Rs.263088/- as reconnection charges in the aforesaid bill in addition to regular bill which is highly fabricated and illegal bill. On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the opposite party is that the electricity meter was checked by the team of M & P Division UHBVNL Rohtak on dated 16.03.2020 vide their report no.6305 dated 16.03.2020 and the meter was found slow by 17.86%. and he has only been charged for slowness of meter by 17.86% and the amount of slowness only has been debited in the consumer bill for Rs.530531/- shown in the bill against sundry column.
6. In the present case as per the respondent officials, the SDO himself issued the directions to install the meter in the premises of complainant. The respondent placed on record service connection order dated 13.10.2018 as Ex.R1, application form as Ex.R2, Ex.R3, performa for providing information before release of new CT/PT connection as Ex.R4, joint checking of CT/PT operated meters Ex.R5, electricity bill Ex.R6 and Sundry charges Ex.R7 etc. Perusal of Ex.R3 itself shows that the connection has been released by the then Executive Engineer. The bare perusal of Ex.R4 itself shows that regarding the connection an nformation has been sent to the X.En O P Division for necessary checking and seal for releasing the electricity connection to the complainant. In the present complaint an affidavit has been filed by Sh.Jaideep s/o Sh. Partap Singh the consumer clerk from the office of SDO Sub Division No.1 as Ex.RW1/A and in para no.4 of the affidavit it has been mentioned that vide sale circular no.14/2014, SDO Operation is competent to release the electricity connection in absence of M & P. But in the present complaint, it has not been established that whether the connection of the complainant was released without the consent or due verification of M & P Division Rohtak but the bare perusal of the other documents placed on record by the respondent itself shows that an information has also been sent to the X.En , M & P Division for necessary verification and seals. Moreover as per Sale Circular No.24/2014 placed on record by the respondent himself, at the time of arguments, which is placed on record as ‘Annexure JN-A’ and the relevant para of the same is as under:-
“Henceforth, all such connections will be released by (OP) wing after the receipt of approval from Chief electrical Inspector(Wherever required) and after completing usual formalities of the Nigam. The meter data shall be downloaded with CMRI by SDO/OP concerned before providing the seals. Subsequent to release of connection, the details of the same shall be sent to SE/M&P and concerned XEN/M&P on the same day through E-mail who in turn will get the correction checked and sealed as early and possible but not later than one week from the date of intimation”.
Meaning thereby, the M & P lab has taken an action regarding the seals and checking of meter within one week. Moreover, the sanctioned load of the complainant is about 245 KW and the high quality CT meter has been installed in the premises of complainant and as per the various sales circulars, the M & P Lab and concerned SDO checked the premises time to time. In some cases when sanctioned load is high, in that situation the meter be checked by the department minutely. It is the prime duty of the department to install the meter after proper checking and verification from L & P Lab. In the present case the meter has been installed in the premises of complainant on dated 13.10.2018 and as per the report they have checked the meter of the complainant on dated 16.03.2020 and as per the report, the meter of the complainant was (-17.86%) slow. But no videography has been taken during the checking to establish that in fact the assessment of R & B phase was found wrong at the time of checking and same was rectified by the team on that day. Moreover as per report the accuracy of meter was again checked and found that the meter was working within permissible limits. If this ground taken into consideration, In that situation the meter should not be changed. Why the department changed the meter of the complainant. If the meter was found in permissible working condition then why the same was sent to M & p LAB and why a new meter was installed in the premises of the complainant. It is also on record that an amount of Rs.263088/- have been charged on account of reconnection of meter and an additional expenditure/financial loss has been suffered by the complainant due to act and conduct of the respondent. Moreover the meter was installed in the premises of complainant on dated 13.10.2018 and as per the report they have checked the meter of the complainant on dated 16.03.2020. Hence it cannot be presumed that meter of the complainant was not checked by the Sub Divisional Operation or M & P officials during this period. Hence false and fabricated grounds have been taken in the checking report. It is also observed that as per the bill Ex.C1 issued to the complainant, the outstanding dues are shown as Rs.316992.15/-, Sundry Charges/allowances as Rs.697253.33/-, Provisional Adjustment/BR Adj. Rs.6330/-. Whereas as per the bill Ex.R6 placed on record by the opposite party itself, current cycle are shown as Rs.316992.15/-, outstanding dues as Rs.697253.33/-, Sundry Charges/allowances as Rs.530531/-. Perusal of both the bills itself shows that Ex.C1 and Ex.R6 are the same bill as the date of issue of both the bills is 09.11.2020 and bill no. is 830948932702. But in the bill Ex.R6 the sundry charges/allowances are shown as Rs.530531/- whereas no such amount is shown in the bill Ex.C1 which depicts that a wrong calculation has been made by the opposite party and a false and fabricated bill has been issued to the complainant by concealment of correct information from the complainant. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to charge the sundry charges only for one month and to waive off the remaining amount of sundry charges as shown in bill Ex.R6. Opposite party is further directed to withdraw the reconnection charges and also to pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant and to adjust the alleged amount in the future bills of 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:
24.06.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
…………………………..
Shyam Lal, Member
