Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 628.
Instituted on : 6.11.2017.
Decided on : 08.03.2022.
Dr. S.P. Sharma S/o Smt. Basanti Devi and Husband of Rachna Sharma, R/o H. No.A-1, Inderprashta, Sonipat Road, Rohtak-124001.
………...........Complainant.
Vs.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (U.H.B.V.N.L.) through its Managing Director, Service to be effected through its S.E. (O.P. Division), U.H.B.V.N.L., Rohtak).
- The Executive Engineer, (O.P. Division), Division City, Rohtak, U.H.B.V.N.L., Rohtak.
- S.D.O., R41-No.1, U.H.B.V.N.L., Rohtak.
…..……….Opposite parties
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Lalit Nayyar, Advocate for the complainant.
Ms. Chetna, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that a domestic supply connection bearing account no.9242560000 old account no.2241104UJB110159 stands installed outside the premises of complainant for the last so many years and he is making payments of the electricity bills regularly in time. The opposite parties issued a wrong, false and illegal bill no.924258534213 dated 13.10.2017(received on 27.10.2017) amounting to Rs.37,646/- alleging for a period of 7.8.2017 to 12.10.2017 and directed the complainant to deposit the same, otherwise respondents shall impose penalty and disconnect the connection of the complainant. The complainant informed the respondents on 22.4.2017 that his meter is burnt and needs to be replaced by new one. The respondents asked the complainant to purchase new meter from the market. On their direction, new meter was purchased and deposited in the lab by paying required charges and receipts etc. on 25.4.2017. After completing all formalities, the complainant visited the office of respondent no.3 many times and waited for replacement by new meter till 7.9.2017. The complainant made another request in writing on 8.9.2017 for replacing the meter but of no result. The respondents charged the bill at an ‘Average’, which were duly paid. A self generated bill dated 13.10.2017 received on 27.10.2017 was sent for Rs.38,750/-. The complainant has made a number of requests to respondents not to charge excess amount and treat the said bill as null & void but to no effect. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to defer the payment of the self generated bill and rectify impugned bill dated 13.10.2017 as on average and as per tariffs, applicable in the consumption period and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment as well as 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 that the respondents have issued a bill dated 13.10.2017 amounting to Rs.37646/-. It is denied that the respondents threatened the complainant. It is correct that the due date was 30.10.2017. In case of non payment by due date, the respondents have a legal right to impose penalty or to disconnect the connection. It is further submitted that the meter was sent to the lab. The same was checked in the lab and after checking report, the bill was rightly and legally sent. It is denied that the respondents are delaying the replacement of meter. It is wrong that the electricity rates in the period given in the bill dated 13.10.2017 are different or higher. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 19.3.2019. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and has closed his evidence on dated 14.5.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. During the pendency of the complaint an application has been moved by Dr. S.P.Sharma after claiming that he is using the said electricity connection and complainant namely Smt. Rachna Sharma has died. Through this complaint, the complainant has challenged the electricity bill dated 13.10.2017. Through this bill the electricity department demanded a sum of Rs.37646/- from the complainant as electricity charges. As per the complainant the bill has been wrongly issued by the respondent officials. Complainant has further pleaded that the electricity meter bearing connection no.9242560000 has been burnt in the month of April 2017 and he moved an application before the department on dated 22.04.2017. The copy of the intimation to SDO-I(UHBVN), Rohtak has been placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C4. On asking of the respondents, the complainant has purchased a new electricity meter on dated 25.04.2017 amounting to Rs.3200/- and same was deposited to the respondents for further procedure. The complainant has placed on record the payment receipt amounting to Rs.530/- as Ex.C2. Through Ex.C2 the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.200/- as meter installation charges and Rs.330/- for meter equipment testing charges. Meaning thereby the department has received the meter as well as testing charges of the meter from the complainant and it is the prime duty of the respondent officials to install the electricity meter in the premises of the complainant as per procedure in the month of April or thereafter. The respondents have not placed on record any document to prove that how the department came into the conclusion that complainant has used the electricity units in the month of June 2017 as 1339, August 2017 as 2660 and October 2017 as 2218. The bare perusal of the electricity bill Ex.C5 itself shows that in the bill dated 13.10.2017 the old reading has been mentioned as 5038 and new reading as Zero. The consumed units shown in this bill are 2218. The respondents have not placed on record any letter/checking report MCO report etc. before this Commission in their evidence. So in our view the bill dated 13.10.2017 is wrongly issued by the department without any authentic evidence. Moreover the respondent has not placed on record the consumption data for the month of
June 2017 to August 2017. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
6. In this way we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties that the meter of the complainant be overhauled from the period June 2017(1339 units) till installation of new meter in the premises of the complainant after taking the average for the period December 2016 to April 2017(December 2016-604 units, February 2017-172 units and April 2017-312 units) and to issue a fresh bill to the complainant. Opposite parties are further directed to pay 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. The alleged amount shall be adjusted in the electricity account of the complainant in future bills. 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:
08.03.2022.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………..
Shyam Lal, Member
