Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 340
Instituted on : 03.09.2020
Decided on : 15.05.2024.
Smt. Rajbala age 58 years, wife of Sh. Prem Singh R/o H.No. 1977, Sector-3, Part-2, 3, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sector 6. Panchkula, through its Managing Director.
- Executive Engineer, City Operation Division, UHBVNL, Rohtak
- S.D.O. Op. Sub Division No. 1, UHBVN Rohtak.
…….Respondents/Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.K.L.Mehta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.K.K.Luthra, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that she is having electricity connection bearing account No.8463860000 DS which is installed in her house for domestic purpose with the sanction load of 2.00 KW. The complainant has been regularly paying the bills of electricity energy consumed and never defaulted in payment the same. The opposite parties issued a bill dated 01.07.2020 in which the old meter reading was shown as 19917, New meter reading 36356, consumed units as 16439. The said bill is for the period from 25.2.2020 to 01.07.2020 amounting to Rs.126987/-. The unit consumed were wrongly shown in the alleged bill as the sanctioned load of the alleged connection is only 2 KW and 16439 units cannot be consumed during the above period. The meter checked by the staff of opposite party and MDI/connected load at site was found on that date 2.80KW. The said meter reading was shown due to meter jump as the meter was not properly working and was having an internal defect. The said meter was replaced by the opposite party on dated 24.07.2020 with final reading 37360 with meter status Block burnt. After that opposite parties sent a bill in the month of 08/2020 on the basis of average reading of 1079 units and showing the meter status as reading was not taken and bill was shown as Rs.95768/- including arrear of Rs.88899.85/-. Complainant has represented in writing and make complaint on 28.08.2020 to correct the bill and on the direction of opposite party no. 3, complainant had deposited Rs.30,000/- on dated 13.7.2020 and also deposited Rs.10,000/- in the month of 5/2020. The said amount was deposited only to avoid the disconnection of supply as repeatedly threatened by the opposite party no.3. But inspite of rectification of bill the opposite party has again issued a wrong bill in the month of 08/2020, Rs.95768/- total amount including arrear has been shown Rs.88,899.85/ which is also not payable by the complainant because the bill was again sent on average basis. On the request of complainant dated 13.7.2020 regarding defective meter and correction of bill, the opposite party has changed meter on dated 24.7.2020 but the alleged electricity bills has not been withdrawn by the opposite party. The above said act of opposite parties is illegal and amount to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed not to claim the amount of disputed bills Rs.1,26,987/- and Rs.95768/- or any surcharge from the complainant, and also to refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- deposited by the complainant in excess. Opposite parties may also be directed not to disconnect the electricity connection of complainant, to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/ on account on account of deficiency in service and Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted the bill was sent as per actual consumption. The meter was changed due to the block brunt at the time of MCO dated 24.07.2020. The meter shown 37360 KWH reading. The reading was taken in the presence of family members of consumer. It is also submitted that system takes times for MCO registration, so the bill was sent on average basis due to non entering the reading. After the reading entered in the system, bill was sent as per actual consumption. The electricity bill was generated from 25.02.2020 to 01.07.2020 with old reading 19917 KWH & new reading 36356.5 KWH which is accurate. Meter got changed on dated 24.07.2022 vide MCO No.37/110 with last reading 37360 KWH. The fresh bill was generated as per actual consumption. The bill of 08/2020 got rectified in next bill of 22.01.2021. It is wrong that the opposite party has issued a wrong bill in the month of 08/2020 of Rs.95768/-. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties 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.C7 and closed his evidence on 22.11.2022. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties in their evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed their evidence on 17.10.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. In fact disputed bill is for the period 25.02.2020 to 01.07.2020 for 127 days and during this period consumed units are shown as 16439. In this bill the old reading is mentioned as 19917 and new reading is mentioned as 36356.48. The next bimonthly bill was also placed on record as Ex.C2 and this bill is of 57 days. The duration of this bill is 01.07.2020 to 27.08.2020 and billed units shown as 1079.39. The main dispute is of the bill Ex.C1.
6. We have minutely perused the photocopy of MCO dated 24.07.2020 which is placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C6 and perusal of this MCO shows that the particulars of this document has been filled by the respondent officials in their own handwriting and this MCO was signed by alleged consumer. The another copy of same is placed on record as Ex.R1 which is signed by Line Superintendent(JE) namely Josheela Rani. Perusal of this documents shows that on this document, there is addition in the column of the reason of change. In this regard a statement of JE Smt. Josheela Rani JE has been got recorded, as per which she has submitted that in the present case the document Ex.C6, which is placed on record by the complainant, the said copy was given by the opposite party to the complainant. In this document the reason of change is written as block burnt whereas in Ex.R1, the reason of change is written as (OK also found/block burnt). This word (OK also found) is added by whom, is not in her knowledge because the original record is not in her custody. Meaning thereby, some forgery has been committed by the officials of the respondent in the MCO. Moreover if the block of the meter has been burnt in that condition the same should be sent to the laboratory for proper analysis/checking of meter and its reading. But the same was not sent to the laboratory. Units were wrongly mentioned in Ex.R1. As such there is deficiency in service on the part or opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to overhaul the account of complainant for 127 days. At the time of arguments, complainant has placed on record a document ‘Annexure-JNA to Annexure-JNG’, as per which the average consumption of meter is 700 units bimonthly. As such taking into consideration the above consumption, the complainant is liable to pay the bill of disputed period of 127 days on 700 bimontly units basis.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to overhaul the account of the complainant w.e.f. 25.02.2020 to 01.07.2020(127 days) and to charge for 1400 units against the total bill of 16439 units for the period of 127 days as shown in the bill Ex.C1. Opposite parties are further directed to issue a fresh bill of 1400 units to the complainant without any interest, penalty or surcharge to the complainant. As per complainant she has already deposited amount of Rs.40000/- against the alleged disputed bill. As such opposite parties are directed to adjust the alleged bill of 1400 units in the amount already paid by the complainant and to the refund the remaining amount alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till its realisation, Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant by adjusting the same in the future bills of the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
7. 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:
15.05.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
