Haryana

Panchkula

CC/118/2015

ASHOK MITTAL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ABHINEET TANEJA.

14 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.   

                                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	118 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	24.06.2015
Date of Decision	:	14.12.2015

 

Ashok Mittal son of Sh.Phool Chand resident of House No.98, Sector 4, Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

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

2.       The S.D.O. Uttra Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Distt. Panchkula.

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

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

 

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.S.P.Attri, Member   

 

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Abhineet Taneja, Adv., for the complainant.

                             Mr.Y.P.Rana, Adv., for the Ops.

 

ORDER

 

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

 

1.                          Ashok Mittal-complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that he had purchased House No.98, Sector 4, Panchkula from Sh.Naveen Jain vide sale deed bearing No.2663 dated 09.01.2006 and after the purchase of the house the complainant has been residing over there and paying the regular electricity bills. The meter is installed outside the house of the complainant on the electricity pole. The average consumption of the electricity was about 2000 to 2200 units for the last many years but in the winter season the average electricity consumption is less than 1200 units.  In the month of January and February, 2014 the electricity meter took a jump and gave excessive reading of 7037 units therefore, the Ops have sent a bill of Rs.52,253/- despite the fact the fact that 7037 units in two months are not possible. The complainant visited the office of the Ops and requested them to check the meter but on the asking of Ops the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.45,000/- on 24.04.2014 with the Ops.   It has been further averred that the electricity meter jumped many times in the year 2014 and in beginning of 2015. The complainant has also deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 13.10.2014, Rs.70,000/- on 06.02.2015. The total units recorded by the defective meter was 36464 from January 2014  to February 2015 and if Rs.5.5 per unit has been calculated then bill amount comes to Rs.2,18,000/- (approximately) and the complainant has already deposited an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- which is more than 50 % of the disputed amount.  On the request of the complainant the Ops had installed a parallel meter and the defective meter was removed in the month of March, 2015 and thereafter it was sent to lab for checking of accuracy of the meter. No notice was given to the complainant at the time of checking of the meter, however the lab has reported that the meter was defective.  The complainant sent a letter to OPs and requested to charge the bill amount correctly but the officials of the Ops visited the premises of the complainant to disconnect the electricity connection.  Since the meter was defective, therefore, the Ops were to charge electricity bill on the basis of corresponding period for the previous year when the meter was functional and recording correctly. If there was an extension of load during the period the meter remained defective then the account of the consumer should finally be overhauled on the basis of average consumption of ensuing corresponding period recorded by the new meter.  New meter was installed on 18.03.2015 therefore, the bills w.e.f. 18.03.2014 upto 18.03.2015 are liable to be quashed and the Ops were under the obligation to charge the bill on the basis of consumption pattern of the preceding year.  The bill raised for the month of May, 2015 is also on higher side whereby an amount of Rs.1,65,933/- which includes the arrears of Rs.1,21,860/-  have been claimed arbitrarily. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CA and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C8.

 2.                         In reply, the Ops filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and same has been filed by concealing the material facts from this Forum.  The meter account No.A27PS193643X is in the name of Naveen Kumar, therefore, he is the consumer of the Nigam. The house of the complainant was inspected by the officials of the Nigam on 18.03.2015 and it was found that the meter was blinking, therefore, new meter was installed and old meter was sent to M&T Lab Dhulkot for testing and on checking the meter was found in abnormal behavior vide office memo No. 354 dated 29.05.2015, therefore, the account of the consumer was overhauled for the period from 09/14 to 01/15 on the basis of corresponding previous year consumption and an amount of Rs.51,000/- is outstanding towards the Ops.

 Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  In evidence the Ops have tendered Affidavit Annexure Ex.DW1/A alongwith document Ex.R1.

3.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file & documents placed on record.

4.                          Learned counsel for the OP has resisted the case of the complainant on the plea that the complainant is not the consumer of the Nigam and the meter in question is in the name of Naveen Kumar, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable.  The version of the complainant is that he had purchased the house from Naveen Kumar (previous owner) on 09.01.2006 vide sale deed No.2663 (Annexure C1) where the electric meter in dispute was installed by the OP.   It has been further pleaded on behalf of the complainant that he has been making the payment of the bills regularly and as per the provisions of CP Act he falls within the category of consumer and the present complaint before this Forum is very much maintainable as the complainant is beneficiary user of the electric connection.  Learned counsel for the complainant has drawn the attention of this Forum towards checking report (Annexure C4) wherein it has been mentioned that the alleged checking was done in the presence of the son of the complainant and he had appended his signatures on the same after receiving the copy thereof. Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Naveen Punj Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board through its SDO 2011 (3) CLT 612 (NC) has held that Consumer-Beneficiary user- The house where the meter in dispute was installed was in the name of “H” which was purchased by appellant from the said “H” in the year 2001- The appellant was using the electricity from the said meter and was paying the electricity bills to the respondent from the year 2001 regularly- As per Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) the appellant comes under the definition of “consumer” as he was the beneficiary user of the electric connection- Verdict of the District Forum that appellant does not come under the definition of “consumer” held not correct and liable to be set aside.    

5.                          From the above discussion and keeping in view the law laid down in Naveen Punj Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board through its SDO (supra) we have no hitch to say that the present complaint is maintainable and this Forum has got the jurisdiction to decide and entertain the present complaint.

6.                          As per the complainant, he was paying electricity bill regularly. However, during the month of January/February, 2014, he noticed that the electricity meter took a jump and gave excessive reading of 7037 units, therefore, he visited the office of Ops and lodged complaint regarding this but on the asking of the Ops he had deposited Rs.45,000/- on 24.04.2014 besides depositing of Rs.50,000/- on 13.10.2014 and Rs.70,000/- on 06.02.2015.  As per checking report (Annexure C4) the Ops checked the premises of the complainant only 18.03.2015, removed the old meter and installed a new meter. In the checking report, the connected load has been shown 15.370 Kws.  It is admitted fact that the meter installed at the premises of the complainant was got checked from M & T lab, Dholkot  for testing and on checking the meter was found working abnormally.  From the above, it is clear that the meter installed at the premises of the complainant was faulty and defective therefore it was for the Ops to overhaul the meter from the date/month when the complainant had lodged the complaint with regard to showing of excessive consumption in the meter due to jump but it is not understandable as to why the account of the complainant was overhauled for the period from 09/14 to 01/15 on the basis of corresponding previous year consumption. The act and conduct of the Ops qua charging of   Rs.45,000/- on 24.04.2014 besides depositing of Rs.50,000/- on 13.10.2014 and Rs.70,000/- on 06.02.2015 from the complainant who is a domestic consumer does not appear to be legal reasonable.  Being a government institution it was for the Ops/Nigam to remove the grievance of the complainant/consumer but in the case in hand it is apparent that the Ops have taken the matter in casual manner and overhauled the account as per their own wishes without taking care of the fact that the complainant had deposited Rs.45,000/- on 24.04.2014 besides depositing of Rs.50,000/- on 13.10.2014 and Rs.70,000/- on 06.02.2015.  On one hand the Ops have charged the part payment from the complainant in the month of April, 2014 but on the other hand they have overhauled the meter of the complainant in the month of 09/14.  The Ops have not explained this lapse  by leading cogent and reliable evidence. Moreover, the OPs have even failed to explain under which formula they have calculated the amount and further charged Rs.45,000/- on 24.04.2014, Rs.50,000/- on 13.10.2014 and Rs.70,000/- on 06.02.2015. The work and conduct of the  OPs towards their consumer is irresponsible because when the meter of the complainant had become defective then the Ops should have replaced the electricity meter of the complainant immediately instead of sending the electricity bills to the complainant on average basis. Another surprising factor which this Forum has noticed that the Ops have sent bill of Rs.165933/- to the complainant for the May, 2015 and in this very bill Rs.1,21,860/- have been shown as outstanding towards the complainant. In the reply the Ops have taken the plea that after overhauling the account of the account of the complainant Rs.51,000/- is outstanding towards the complainant.   It is strange when the account of complainant was overhauled upto 01/15 then how the arrear of the complainant comes to Rs.1,21,860/-.  The Ops have not placed on file any documents/ledger/sundry qua the overhauling of the meter of the complainant.  Though the SDO had furnished his affidavit Ex.DW1/A in evidence to support the version of the Ops but perusal of this affidavit clearly reveals that it has been filed just to complete the formalities without taking care of the interest of the consumer as well as state exchequer.

7.                         It would be evident from a perusal of the preceding paras that the OPs did not at all act on the precise complaint of the complainant about the meter installed at his premises being faulty. The grievance made by the complainant, it may be pointed out, about the faulty running of the meter was found to be correct by the M&T Lab, Dhulkot, which found it to be running abnormally. There is no controversy that the meter was indeed forwarded to the Lab for testing. The OPs compounded the dereliction by further billing the complainant on the basis of the consumption during the preceding year. An instrumentality of the State, which OP No.1 indeed is – OP No.2 being a public servant in the employment of OP No.1 –is expected to conduct its functioning in a more competent and efficient manner. The OPs, by having refrained from immediately acting upon the complaint of the complainant and further by billing him on the basis of the consumption during the corresponding preceding year, indicated a casual approach on their part which cannot be validated by this Forum on any quarters competent in the relevant behalf.

8.                          For the reasons and findings recorded above, we accept the complaint of the complainant and declare the impugned electricity bill of the complainant from 04/2014 to 05/2015 to be illegal and null & void and the Ops are restrained from effecting any recovery on the basis of the impugned bill. The Ops are further directed to charge the bill from the complainant for a period from February, 2014 to May, 2015 when the meter remained faulty/defective on the average consumption basis of the last 6 months of the precedings year of the same months. The Ops are further directed that the amount deposited by the complainant may be adjusted in the future bills. Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

14.12.2015           S.P.Attri                         Anita Kapoor            Dharam Pal

                             Member                Member                     President

 

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

    

                                 

                                                     Dharam Pal

                                                              President