Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 306
Instituted on : 20.04.2021
Decided on : 16.11.2022.
Randhir Singh age-79 years S/o Late Sh. Rattan Singh, R/o H.No. 170/27, Kamal Colony Rohtak.
...........Complainant.
Vs.
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Rohtak through SDO, Sub Division No. 1, Rohtak, Near Power House, Rohtak.
……….Opposite party
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Vivek Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that he is having domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. 0108170000 in his house. He is paying electricity bill regularly. It is submitted that the average bimonthly consumption of units of the complainant fluctuates between 600 to 900 units i.e. in two months. During the billing month of August 2018, 2432 units were shown to have been consumed and in the month of October 2018, 3022 units were shown to have been consumed. It is further submitted that complainant paid the entire bills thinking that it would have been a single instance of sudden fluctuation in the reading. The complainant was shocked to receive a bill in August, 2019 for 9255 units and accordingly a bill of Rs.71,443/- was issued and similarly a bill of 4059 units for November 2019 was issued. It is impossible for the complainant to consume a large amount of the units in a residential house. Upon receipt of the illegal huge bills, the complainant approached the officials of the opposite party but instead of doing some needful, they installed a check meter on 16.12.2019. It is evident that electricity meter equipment suddenly jumps or there is any other technical defect in the meter otherwise how could the readings reduced to 383 units for a period of 24 days in December 2019-January 2020 i.e. to an average of 800 units in two months, which is the actual average consumption of the complainant. Complainant made various repeated oral requests to the opposite party to overhaul the electricity account of the complainant and for installing perfect working meter equipment but no heed has been given to the requests of complainant. It is further submitted by the complainant that he paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the opposite party on 08.02.2021 via Demand Draft bearing No.644282 by the orders of Ld. Chairman, PLA(PUS), Rohtak dated 04.02.2021. Thereafter, on 10.03.2021 and 09.04.2021 opposite party again issued illegal bills amounting to Rs.3,35,404/- and Rs.1,56,904/- respectively. In the electricity bill dated 10.03.2021 old meter reading is showing as 96400 and new reading column was shown as blank. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to not to charge the alleged amount of Rs.111670/-, Rs.335404/- and Rs.156904/-, which is due to sudden unwanted fluctuation in the electricity meter, to charge the average bill from the complainant after overhauling his complete account, to replace the defective meter, to install the real time display unit in the premises of the complainant and not to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant and also to pay compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has denied that complainant has been regularly paying all the electricity dues on time. The complainant is having 3 phase connection. It is also denied that the consumption of electricity of the complainant fluctuates between 600 to 900 units in two months. The bills sent to the complainant are absolutely correct and legal because the complainant has consumed electricity energy. The electricity meter is running OK. The complainant is in arrears of electricity bills. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent and they prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, and document Ex.C1 to Ex. C9 and has closed his evidence on 24.05.2022. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-12 and has closed his evidence on 20.09.2022.
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 grievance of the complainant is that the bills dated 19.12.2019 amounting to Rs.116670/-(Ex.C2), bill dated 10.03.2021 amounting to Rs.335404/-(Ex.C7) and bill dated 09.045.2021 amounting to Rs.156904/-(Ex.C8) issued by the opposite party are illegal and excessive and the consumption of the complainant is only 600 to 900 units. We have perused the bill Ex.C1 dated 21.08.2019, as per which the same is issued for 9255 units whereas the previous bills of the complainant w.e.f. August 2018 to Jun 2019 are from 3022 units to 340 units, which shows that the bills dated 19.12.2019, 10.03.2021 and 09.04.2021 are on higher side. On the other hand, it has not been alleged by the respondents that the meter reading were tempered by the complainant, or reading has been wrongly noted by the meter reader or the premises of the complainant was found locked or reading were taken on average basis by the respondents. No such plea has been taken by the respondent. So there is technical defect in the meter in question. Hence wrong bill has been issued by the opposite party and as such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to overhaul the account of complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to overhaul the account of complainant w.e.f. 22.06.2019 to 15.11.2019 after taking the average of 4 bills w.e.f. 04.10.2018 to 22.06.2019 and issue a fresh bill to the complainant within 30 days from the date of decision. The complainant has deposited a lump sum amount of Rs.One lakh on dated 09.02.2021. Opposite party is further directed to not to charge any interest, penalty or surcharge on the alleged disputed bill or on the other bills which were raised by the department after the disputed bill till the decision of complaint. Complainant is directed to pay the alleged bill within 30 days from the date of issue of fresh bill by the department. Opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant and to adjust the alleged amount in the future bills of the complainant.
6. 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:
16.11.2022
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
