Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                    Complaint No. : 506

                                                                   Instituted on     : 02.11.2020.

                                                                   Decided on       : 03.01.2022.

Aditya Batra, age 40 years son of Sh. H.L.Batra c/o Holy Heart Hospital, Delhi Bye pass, Rohtak.

                                                                   ...........Complainant.

                                                Vs.

UHBVNL, Rohtak through SDO, Sub Division No.1, Rohtak.

……….Opposite party

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

Present:       Shri Sanjeev Batra, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the opposite party. 

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case are that complainant is having electricity connection bearing no.1384160000, which is installed at the premises of the hospital run by the complainant . The complainant received the electricity bill issued by the opposite party on dated 29.09.2020 for the period 12.07.2020 to 09.09.2020 and the department had added an amount of Rs.596687.68/- in addition to the regular bill as sundry charges as such he approached the office of respondent to know about the addition of illegal amount in the electricity bill besides the amount of regular consumption, but he was not given any satisfactory reply by the officials of respondent. Initially the respondent assured to look into the matter but lateron the respondent started avoiding the complainant and two days back has finally refused to correct the bill. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be restrained from recovering the sundry charges of Rs.596687/- added in the electricity bill of complainant or initiating any proceeding against the complainant in any manner and issue the electricity bill as per actual consumption  of complainant as per rules, to pay an amount  of Rs.200000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and to pay Rs.100000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that complainant is running well equipped specialized hospital with latest technology of Machine & specialized doctors for treatment. It is incorrect that respondent has illegally added sundry charges in addition to the regular bill. The bills issued by the respondent were issued on the  basis of units of electricity consumed by the complainant & the same were correct and as per the Electricity Act. It is submitted that on 18.02.2020 M&P Division, UHBVN, Rohtak visited the site for periodical checking, supply found running, accuracy of meter checked & found meter slow(79.4%) date taken into Cmrs for further investigation CT chamber open and found R & Y phase association wrong, the same set right.  

                   Accuracy of meter again checked & found working within permissible limit. Date taken in to Cmrs. SDO is requested to charge the difference & intimate to M & P office. In this way, amount mentioned in the bill sundry charges as demanded by respondent on the basis of checking report of M&P Division, Rohtak no.5685, copy  of Sundry charge register & calculation of difference sheet are enclosed. The bill issued on correct reading & units of electricity consumed & the respondent has a legal and valid reason to disconnect the connection of the complaint if the raised bill is not paid by the respondent.  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, and document Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence on dated 31.08.2021. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and has closed his evidence on dated 20.8.2021.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                In the present case the opposite party has issued the bill Ex.C1 dated 29.09.2020, as per which an amount of Rs.596687/- have been shown as arrears/outstanding dues and the due date of this bill is 06.10.2020. In this bill the consumption bill is for Rs.212728.75/-. As per  the complainant an amount of Rs.596786/- has been wrongly charged by the department in the bill dated 29.09.2020 without any cause and reason .

6.                We have minutely perused the written statement and affidavit filed  by the respondent. As per respondent M & P Division  UHBVN, Rohtak visited the site  for a periodical checking on dated 18.02.2020. The mater of the complainant was checked and a report  bearing no.5685 has been prepared and found the meter of the complainant was running slow upto 79.4%. Report no.5685 was prepared on the same day. As per this report, “On 18.02.2020 M&P Division, UHBVN, Rohtak visited the site for periodical checking, supply found running, accuracy of meter checked & found meter slow(79.4%) date taken into Cmrs for further investigation CT chamber open and found R & Y phase association wrong, the same set right.  Accuracy of meter again checked & found working within permissible limit. Date taken in to Cmrs. SDO is requested to charge the difference & intimate to M & P office”. After that the assessment of arrears has been prepared as Ex.R2 and the same has been charged as per rules in the sundry charges and allowance register on dated 01.06.2020 for Rs.530003/-.

7.                After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that a false and fabricated checking report has been prepared by the respondent officials because the respondent officials have not placed on record any videography or any photographs before this Commission. The checking report does not bear the signatures of the checking party and also not appears the signatures of the complainant or any representative of the complainant. So it cannot be believed that the same has been prepared on the spot in the presence of the complainant. Previous checking was made on 10.10.2018 and the present checking was made on 18.02.2020. During this period no letter has been placed on record to prove the fact that there is less consumption shown by the meter. No document regarding slow consumption has been placed on record. No notice has ever been served upon the complainant u/s 135 of Electricity Act. Hence opposite party has wrongly charged the alleged amount from the complainant.

8.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party not to charge the arrears of Rs.596687/- imposed vide bill dated 29.09.2020 and further not to charge any surcharge etc. from the complainant. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision and the alleged awarded amount shall be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant.

9.                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:

03.01.2022.                                               

                                                          .....................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.