Haryana

Panchkula

CC/151/2020

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

UMESH NARAG & CHANDRA SEKHAR.

08 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	151 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	11.03.2020
Date of Decision	:	08.05.2023

 

 

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Aged 70 years s/o T.R.Sharma, R/O House No.2020, Sector-21, Panchkula.

 

                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Sub   Division Officer(SDO) Sub-Urban Panchkula, 66KV, Sub-station,      Power Colony, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula.

2.     XEN Operation, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, 66KV, Sub-station, Power Colony, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula.                                                                                                                                                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

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

 

 

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person along with Sh. Chander Shekhar, Advocate.

                        Sh.Y.P.Rana, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

                       

 

                                        ORDER

 

(Satpal, President)

1.              Briefly stated, the facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant is consumer of OPs vide two separate consumer account numbers, out of which, one is on the ground floor and the other is on the Ist floor. The present complaint relates to electricity meter installed at ground floor of the premises with consumer number 4504340000. The complainant has regularly paid the monthly bills towards his electricity consumption. The average power consumption starting from June 2017 to June 2019 in respect of the said electric connection is about 21 units per day. The details of electricity consumption for the month w.e.f. June 2017 to June 2019 is given below:-

Sr.No.	Billing month	Period Days	Units consumed	Bill amount
1	June-2017	83	1228	7455.00
2	Aug-2017	60	2183	16595.00
3	Oct-2017	62	1651	11041.00
4	Dec-2017	58	884	5363.00
5	Feb-2018	62	1236	7878.00
6	Apr-2018	56	806	4853.00
7	June-2018	59	1121	7318.00
8	Aug-2018	70	648.6	3614.00
9	Dec-2018	135	4028.4	20422.00
10	Feb-2019	60	1347	8877.00
11	Apr-2019	81	1024	4936.00
12	Jun-2019	40	1498	11563.00

 

It is alleged that the electricity bill in the month of August 2019 had shown a jump of consumption of electricity from 21 units per day to 141 units per day and the consumption was shown as 8904 units with billing amount of Rs.68,796. On 26.08.2019, the complainant approached the OPs at their Industrial Area, Phase-2, Panchkula office and lodged a complaint vide diary no.5353 seeking correction of excess billing. The complainant again gave a complaint to the Ops on 09.09.2029 vide diary no.5657 & on 27.09.2019 vide diary no.5962. Since no action was taken by the Ops on the complaints of the complainant, he again visited the Ops on 15.10.2019 & 21.10.2019 but the OPs did not give any positive response towards settling the issue of the excess billing of the electricity connection of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the customer care of the UHBVN through email on 22.10.2019, and apprised about the earlier complaints given to the OPs and requested to provide resolution to the issue. No reply was received from the Ops qua the above said email and he again sent an email on 31.10.2019 to which the Ops replied that they were working on it and asked the complainant to wait for some time. Thereafter, the complaint has lodged another complaint no. CMPA26000185160. It is stated that the OPs, to verify the claim of the complainant regarding fast running of meter, installed a parallel test meter with the faulty electricity meter. The meter was kept installed for 18 days to check the difference in faulty electricity meter and test meter. It is alleged that the consumption of electricity in check meter in comparison with faulty meter for 18 days from 07.11.2019 to 25.11.2019 clearly established that the faulty meter was running very fast. The details as per in the check meter report is given as under for comparison:-

	Check Meter	Consumer Meter
Serial no.	18637353	11942
Make	L8T	3XDAVOM
Capacity	3X1060	3X2060
Reading(07.11.2019)	1177.69	X26629.7
Reading(25.11.2019)	1432.09	29361.1
Consumption 18 days	254.4	2731.4

 

A perusal of the above comparison clearly establishes that the electricity meter installed at the ground floor of the house of the complainant was running very fast and it was running almost 11 times fast than the test meter.  The test meter was removed on 25.11.2019 with an assurance that a new meter would be installed and revised bill would be issued to him. After many reminders and email conversation, the OPs had installed a new meter as replacement of faulty meter on 23.12.2019 and the old faulty meter was packed to be sent to Meter Testing Lab at Dhulkot. It is submitted that on 08.01.2020, the OP raised a bill for the month of December 2019(from 20.10.2019 to 23.12.2019) for 64 days on 08.01.2020 for consumption of Rs.8627.53 units for an amount of Rs.1,95,180/-without adjusting the excess bills raised from July 2019 onwards although it was established from the Test Meter Report that the electricity meter installed at the ground floor of the house of the complainant was faulty. The complainant sent an email stating that till the bills are revised, he would not make any payment towards faulty bills. It is submitted that the a sum of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.40,000/- was deposited by the complainant so as to avoid the disconnection. It is submitted that the Ops continued to raise the demand vide electricity bills on inflated basis despite the fact that the faulty/defective meter was running 11 times fast as compared to check meter. It is submitted that as per sale circular no.06/2007, in case, a consumer connection was dead, faulty, defective, the demand is liable to be raised on the basis of consumption of last six months. It is submitted that the Ops were requested several times to rectify the incorrect/ inflated bills but no heed was paid by the OPs. Due to act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua the complaint is not maintainable; no locus standi and the complainant has not come with clean hands and concealed the true & material facts. It is submitted that the complainant is the consumer of the Ops vide account no.4504340000. It is submitted that the electricity bills were issued qua the said account no.4504340000 on the basis of actual consumption made by the complainant & now, a sum of Rs.1,13,671/- is due towards the complainant. It is admitted that a parallel/check meter was installed besides the meter in question at the premises of the complainant but the working of the said parallel meter was not found correct. Therefore, the OPs in order to remove the doubt had sent the electricity meter in question to the Meter testing laboratory, Dhulkot for its testing. The electricity meter was checked by the said laboratory, which had sent its report dated 09.01.2020, wherein accuracy was found 1.10% which is within the permissible limit. It is submitted that the accuracy of the electricity meter pertaining to account no.4504340000 was found correct and thus, the same is neither faulty nor defective. The bills issued by the Ops are correct, wherein no correction is required.  On merits, pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.             To prove the case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 & C-22 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Annexure R-A along with document Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.

                During the course of arguments, the Complainant has placed on record the details qua  average electricity consumption pattern for last three and half years, which is taken on record as ‘Mark A’ for the adjudication of the complaint in a proper and fair manner.

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

5.             The grievances of the complainant are that the electric meter installed at his house qua account no.4504340000 was defective/faulty, during the period w.e.f. June 2019 to December 2019 and the bill generated, during this period, raising demand from him on account of consumption of electric energy being based on the defective/faulty meter were incorrect and invalid. The learned counsel for the complainant, during arguments, reiterating the averments made in the complaint as also in the affidavit Annexure C-A of the complainant has prayed for the acceptance of the complaint by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint. The allegations of the complainant, qua raising of inflated demand vide several electric bills, during the disputed period i.e. w.e.f. June 2019 to December 2019, is based on the following grounds:-

i.      That, as per report dated 07.10.2019(Annexure C-15), the        electric meter, installed at the premises of the complainant, was     found running fast as compared to parallel/check meter, which was installed to check and verify the accuracy of the electric         meter in question.

ii.      That there is steep variations between the consumption pattern of electric energy during the disputed period on one hand vis-a-  vis the consumption pattern prior to and after the disputed        period on the other hand.

6.             The Ops have denied the averments made by the complainant qua inflated bills on the ground that the accuracy of the electric meter, installed at the premises of the complainant, was found correct as per test report dated 09.01.2020(Annexure R-1) issued by testing laboratory, Dulkot. The learned counsel appearing  on behalf of the Ops reiterating  the averments as made in the written statement as also in the affidavit(Annexure R-A) has prayed for dismissal of the complaint being frivolous, baseless and meritless.

7.             After hearing the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for both the parties, it is found that the defence of the Ops is solely based upon the checking report dated 09.01.2020(Annexure R-1). Admittedly, the parallel electric meter was installed at the premises of the complainant so as to check and verify the working/ accuracy of the allegedly defective/Faulty meter in question. It is also not in dispute that the electric meter in question was found running much fast i.e. more than 11 times fast vis-a-vis the parallel/check meter. As per parallel/ check meter report dated 07.10.2019(Annexure C-15) consumption of 225.4 units was found vide parallel/check meter whereas, during the same period, 3731 units were found consumed vide defective/faulty meter. The Ops have refused to act upon the said report dated 07.10.2019(Annexure C-15) stating that the parallel/ check meter was not correct. However, no report of any expert or any laboratory qua the alleged defects of parallel/check meter has been placed on record by the Ops. It is well settled legal proposition that mere bald assertions, which are not corroborated and substantiated by any adequate, cogent and credible evidence do not carry any evidentiary value. Therefore,  it is well proved, as per checking report dated 07.10.2019(Annexure C-15) that the electric meter in question was running much fast as compared to parallel/check meter. 

8.             To rebut the contentions of the Ops, the complainant has placed on record the electric bills in the shape of Annexure C-1 to C-13, C-16 & C-20. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the consumption pattern is tabulated as under:-

Consumption pattern prior to disputed period  Table ‘A’

Sr.No.	Billing month	Period Days	Units consumed	Bill amount
1	June-2017	83	1228	7455.00
2	Aug-2017	60	2183	16595.00
3	Oct-2017	62	1651	11041.00
4	Dec-2017	58	884	5363.00
5	Feb-2018	62	1236	7878.00
6	Apr-2018	56	806	4853.00
7	June-2018	59	1121	7318.00
8	Aug-2018	70	648.6	3614.00
9	Dec-2018	135	4028.4	20422.00
10	Feb-2019	60	1347	8877.00
11	Apr-2019	81	1024	4936.00
12	Jun-2019	40	1498	11563.00

        The details of the consumption pattern during the disputed period as provided by the complainant are given as under:-

(Table ‘B’)

S. No.	Meter Reading period		Period in days	Meter reading		Units consumed	Billed units	Average per day	Billed amount	Surcharge	Total Bill amount	Amount paid by consumer
	From	To		Old	New
1	24.6.19	26.08.19	63	8915	17819	8904	8904	141.33	68796	1988	70784
2	26.8.19	20.10.19	55	17819	24822	7003	7003	127.33	124898	3618	128516
3	20.10.19	23.12.19	64	24822	34982	10160	10160	158.75	189377	5803	195180
4	23.12.19	24.12.19	1	34982	35117	135	135	135.00

        The details of consumption pattern after the disputed period are given as under:-

(Table ‘C’)

S. No.	Meter Reading period		Period in days	Meter reading		Units consumed	Billed units	Average per day	Billed amount	Surcharge	Total Bill amount	Amount paid by consumer
	From	To		OLD	NEW
1	24.12.19	25.02.20	63	1	1543	1542	1542	24.48	12721.55	4034	138763	50000/ 4.02.20
												25000/ 19.02.20
												40000/ 28.02.20
2	25.02.20	02.05.20	67	1543	2817	1274	1274	19.01	8136.06	3155	109733	8,500
3	02.05.20	21.06.20	50	2817	4042	1225	1225	24.50	8188.77	3228	112436	8,200
4	210.6.20	06.01.21	199	4042	9413	5371	5371	26.99	41659	4027	138672	41,800
5	06.01.21	22.02.21	47	9413	10792	1379	1379	29.34	10696.75	3686	127645	10,697
6	22.02.21	20.04.21	57	10792	11643	851	851	14.93	4361.22	3592	124675	4,361
7	20.04.21	24.06.21	65	11643	12899	1256	1256	19.32	7387.83	3778	131162	7,400
8	24.06.21	26.08.21	63	12899	14853	1954	1954	31.02	14942.78	4096	142231	15,000
9	26.08.21	29.10.21	64	14853	16331	1478	1478	23.09	8517.41	4064	139332	8,518
10	29.10.21	29.12.21	61	16331	17383	1052	1052	17.25	5490.93	4093	140125	5,491
11	29.12.21	22.02.22	55	17383	19079	1696	1696	30.84	12454.59	4418	151384	12,500
12	22.02.22	12.04.22	49	19079	19890	811	811	16.55	3944.16	4289	146662	3,945
13	12.04.22	01.07.22	80	19890	22211	2321	2321	29.01	17039.31	4784	163710	17,040
14	01.07.22	21.08.22	51	22211	23729	1518	1518	29.76	16843.61	4895	167787	16,845
15	21.08.22	05.11.22	76	23729	25515	1786	1786	23.50	13283.41	4908	168614	13,290
		Average consumption per day (last 36 months)						23 units
		Per day consumption of faulty meter						141 units

       

9.             From  bare perusal of the above three tables, a steep variation in the consumption pattern of electrical energy has been found during the disputed period as compared to the consumption pattern prior to disputed period as well as after the disputed period. The Ops have failed to provide any rational and reasonable justification for the steep variation between the consumption pattern during the disputed period vis-a-vis the consumption pattern prior to disputed period as well as after the disputed period. Therefore, the version of the complainant is found having merits whereas the version of the OPs qua the accuracy of the meter in question is found baseless and meritless. In view of the factual discussion made above, we conclude that the Ops were deficient, while raising the demand from the complainant vide several electric bills qua consumption of electric energy based on defective/faulty meter.  

10.            Coming to relief, it is found that the defective/faulty meter was replaced with new one on 23.12.2019.  Thus, the overhauling of the account of the complainant is required w.e.f. June 2019 till December 2019. The average consumption of electric units, after the installation of new meter, for 6 months comes as 22.45 per day, the details of which is given as under:-

Sr.No.	Meter Reading Period		Period in days	Meter Reading		Units Consumed
	From	To		Old	New
1.	24.12.2019	25.02.2020	63	1	1543	1542
2.	02.05.2020	21.06.2020	67	1543	2817	1274
3.	21.06.2020	06.01.2021	50	2817	4042	1225
		Total	180			4041

 

11.            Keeping in view the aforesaid mentioned factual position, it would be just, fair and justified to direct the Ops to overhaul the account of the complainant for the disputed period w.e.f. June 2019 to December 2019 by taking consumption of 22.45 units per day as the average consumption of the electric units for 6 months after the installation of the new meter and the Ops are directed accordingly. The complainant has already made the payment of Rs.1,15,000/-(50000+40000+ 25000) to the Ops; therefore, the Ops are directed to adjust the said amount of Rs.1,15,000/- while raising the fresh demand.

12.            Further, the complainant is entitled to be compensated on account of mental agony and harassment as well as litigation charges and accordingly, the Ops are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony  and harassment and a sum of Rs.5,500/- as litigations charges.

13.            The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs No.1 & 2. 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: 08.05.2023

 

 

 

 

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav          Dr.Sushma Garg            Satpal

                        Member                      Member               President

 

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

 

   Satpal

  President