Haryana

Panchkula

CC/421/2019

CHANDER SHEKHAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

17 Aug 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	421 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	01.08.2019
Date of Decision	:	17.08.2021

 

Chander Shekhar, aged 40 years, son of Shri Surinder Kumar, resident of House No.587-S, Sector-21, Panchkula                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ….Complainant

                                        Versus                                                                  

1.     Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-       6,         Panchkula-134109 through its Managing Director.

2.     Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Sub-Divisional Officer (Operation),City Sub-Division, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula- 134117.

3.     Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Executive Engineer/ Operation Division, Panchkula-134117

                                                                         ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.

OPs No.1 to 3 already ex-parte vide order dated 16.09.2019.

                                       

                                                ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant has taken the house no.587-S, Sector-21, Panchkula on rent from its landlord since May, 2015 and using the electricity connection installed in the said premises vide Electricity Connection No.3964240000 (Old No.2113701UPS310625) and paying the regular bills. It is alleged that the OPs had not issued bill for the period of August, 2018 to October, 2018 to the complainant regarding the said connection. However, the OPS had issued bill for the period of 07.10.2018 to 20.12.2018 vide bill no.396423745725 dated 29.12.2018 in which the unit consumption was shown as 861, however the bill was issued for Rs.60,278/- in which the previous  arrears were shown to be Rs.56,263/-. On receipt of the said inflated bill, he approached the OPNo.2 and on this the complainant was issued a duplicate bill bearing no.396420618892 for the period of 05.08.2018 to 07.10.2018 wherein the unit consumption was shown as 7083 and bill amount as Rs.54,677/-. On receipt of the said duplicate bill, the complainant submitted an application on 09.01.2019 for correction of the said impugned bills. After that, on assurances of the OP No.2, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.20000/- against the said bill under protest.  After deposit the said amount the complainant visited the OP No.2 to know about the status of correction of his bill, the OP No.2 disclose to him to avoid disconnection and penalty, the complainant has to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.40,278/- and assured to him the excess amount will be adjusted in the future bills and the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.40,278/- on 14.01.2019/-. In pursuance of the RTI application filed by the complainant, the OPs No.2 & 3 put a check meter alongwith the electricity meter of the complainant and the same was removed on 26.03.2019 at 4:15 to 4:30 PM. As per the checking meter the unit consumption was shown for the period 18.03.2019 to 26.03.2019 as 75 Unit, whereas, as per the electricity meter installed at the premises the unit consumption was approximate 4000, which shows that the meter installed at the premises was defective one and running fast than the actual consumption, accordingly, LL-1 was prepared at site. On the said LL-1 report it was further mentioned that the meter was running fast and was removed and packed and sent to M&T Lab Dhulkot for its checking and put another meter at the place of the said meter. Again on 18.06.2019, the complainant visited the office of the OPs as no bill was received by him after the removal of the meter and placing on new meter, but again OPs further issued a duplicate bill pertaining to period 22.02.2019 to 26.03.2019 showing the unit consumption as 73378 to 77501.7 unit consumption as 4123 and further in the said bill they mention the consumption of new meter for the period 26.03.2019 to 24.04.2019 showing consumption as 872.03 unit. By the said bill the OPs had demanded an amount of Rs.40,225/- against the said impugned bill. On receipt of the said bill, the complainant again agitated the matter with the OPs but all in vain. Thereafter, the complainant again time and again requested the OPs to withdraw/correct the said illegal bills but of no use.  Thus, the act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs No.1 to 3 through registered post (vide registered post No.CH033388415IN to OP No.1, registered post No.CH033388407IN to OP No.2 and registered post No. CH033388424IN to OP No.3) on 16.08.2019, which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OPs No.1 to 3; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Ops No.1 to 3, they were proceeded ex-parte by this Forum vide its order dated 16.09.2019.

3.             The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-14 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

                During the course of arguments, the complainant has placed on record a list showing the details of consumption after the installation of new meter alongwith the relevant electric bills. The aforesaid list as well as the relevant bills are taken on record for the adjudication of the dispute in a proper and fair manner as Mark ‘A’ to ‘U’.

4.             We have heard the complainant and have gone through the entire record available on record including written arguments filed by the the complainant, carefully and minutely.

5.             Evidently the complainant is the user of electric connection no.3964240000(old no.2113701UPS310625) installed in the house no.587-S, Sector-21, Panchkula. The grievances of the complainant are qua bill no.396420618892 dated 16.11.2018, bill no.396423745725 dated 29.12.2018 and bill no.396426242865 dated 27.05.2019 amounting to Rs.54,677/-, Rs.56,263/- & Rs.40,225/- respectively. The consumption of the electricity as shown in the said bills has been alleged to be excessive and exorbitant on the ground that the electric meter was defective. Therefore, the dispute to be adjudicated by us is whether the electric meter was defective or not and further, whether the consumption of electricity as shown in the disputed bills is in conformity with the present electric consumption pattern.

6.             The OP did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him. The non-appearance of the OP despite notice shows that he has nothing to say in his defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. It is pertinent to mention here that even after the ex-parte order dated 16.09.2019 the concerned SDO alongwith commercial assistant were directed to appear in person on 05.03.2020 vide our order dated 28.01.2020. Sh.Nirmal Singh Sangwan, SDO and Sh. Rajesh Sangwan, Commercial Assistant appeared on 05.03.2020 to sort out the dispute but after 05.03.2020, none appeared on behalf of OPs so as to settle the dispute pertaining to defective meter.

7.             On the other hand, the version of the complainant is fully supported and corroborated by his affidavit Annexure C-A, along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-14.

8.             As per checking report Annexure C-6, electric meter was removed from the sight and was packed in a box for onward transmission on same for its testing in M & T Lab Dhulkot but the OPs have preferred not to place on record the testing report, if any, so as to bring out the truth in the matter. Further, it is worth mentioning that a check meter was installed by the Ops at the premises of the complainant so as to ascertain the allegations of the complainant regarding fast running of the meter. As per information received by the complainant under RTI Act vide Annexure C-13(colly), total 92 numbers of units were found to have been consumed w.e.f. 15.03.2019 to 22.03.2019(08 days) whereas the consumption shown by the alleged defective meter was  approximately 3900 during the said period. Apart from above, it may be mentioned here that the consumption of electric unit as shown vide bill no.396420618892 dated 16.11.2018, bill no.396423745725 dated 29.12.2018 and bill no.396426242865 dated 27.05.2019 has been found contrary to the present electric consumption pattern. Thus, the meter in question was undoubtedly defective; hence, the grievances of the complainant have been found correct and genuine.

9.             Now, coming to the relief, first of all, the demand notice served upon the complainant vide bill no.396420618892 dated 16.11.2018, bill no.396423745725 dated 29.12.2018 and bill no.396426242865 dated 27.05.2019 are quashed.  Now, coming to the average consumption made by the complainant in a period of one month,  which is calculated on the basis of consumption made during the  six months w.e.f. 21.12.2019 to 24.06.2020 as per Mark ‘B’ after the installation  of the new meter, it has been found that approximately 470 numbers of units, were consumed. In our considered opinion, it would be reasonable, just and fair to direct the OPs to raise the demand taking the average consumption as 470(approx.) on monthly basis for the disputed period. Therefore, we direct the OPs to raise the fresh bills showing the consumption 470(approx.) numbers of units on monthly basis for the disputed period. It is made clear that the amount already paid by the complainant under protest as well as on the directions of the Commission shall be duly adjusted while raising the fresh demand.

10.            In the light of above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the Ops No.1 to 3 are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant in the light of the directions mentioned above.  If the complainant is found to have made the payment in excess, the same shall be adjusted by the OPs in future bills. Further, the OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-on account of mental agony and harassment and a sum of Rs.5,500/- on account of litigation charges.

 11.           The OPs No.1 to 3 shall comply with the directions/orders within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs No.1 to 3 failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 to 3. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.  

Announced on: 17.08.2021

 

          Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini             Satpal

                  Member                  Member                          President

 

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

 

                                             Satpal

                                            President