Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 603.
Instituted on : 22.2.2020.
Decided on : 09.11.2021.
Sanjeev, aged 40 years son of Sh. M.R. Batra, resident of village Kahnaur, Tehsil Kalanaur, Distt. Rohtak. ...........Complainant.
Vs.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Executive Engineer, Sub Division No.1, Rohtak.
- S.D.O., U.H.B.V.N.L. Kalanaur, Distt. Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Sanjeev Batra, Advocate complainant in person.
Shri Pardeep Ahlawat, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that in August, 2016, the complainant has started dairy farming for earning his livelihood and applied for N.D.S. electricity connection for his dairy farming from respondents and he was regularly paying his electricity bills to the respondents as per bills issued by respondents from time to time. The complainant was having an electricity connection bearing NO.R32-INK1-1932 in his dairy and sanctioned load is 18 KW. After November, 2019, the respondents have stopped sending the electricity bill and not intimated through phone or in any other way to the complainant. The complainant regularly visited in the office of respondents to issue the bills but all in vain. The complainant was shocked to receive the bill dated 1.12.2020 for the period from 15.09.2020 to 15.11.2020 in which 2230 units have been shown consumed and an amount of Rs.92,045/- was shown as bill amount, whereas no such units of electricity were consumed by the complainant. In the year 2016 to November, 2019 the consumption of the complainant was only 5506 units, then how it is possible that only in two months the complainant consumed 8272 units. In this regard, the complainant approached the respondents’ officials and requested to get cancel the alleged bill and not to charge extra amount from his except the consumption charges but all in vain. Hence the complaint and he prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to cancel the bill dated 1.12.2020 and not to charge any surcharge or any other charges from the complainant and to issue him a fresh bill on the basis of actual consumption only and not to include the alleged amount in future bills and any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled to be also granted of the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that the complainant has applied for electricity connection in NDS category and he was using the electricity for commercial purpose. Initially the electricity bill was issued to the complainant in D.S. category inadvertently, but later on after detecting the mistake, the bill was issued in NDS category. Since June, 2017 till April, 2021, the complainant has paid the electricity bill only on three occasions and he is habitual defaulter. The department has issued the electricity bill on regular basis. Due to non deposit of electricity bills by the complainant in time, a huge arrear has accumulated in the account of complainant and he is liable to make the payment of electricity bills issued as per rules and consumption of complainant. 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.C7 and has closed his evidence on dated 09.07.2021. In additional evidence, ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C7 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence on 26.10.2021. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and has closed his evidence on dated 1.10.2021.
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 grievances of the complainant is that the opposite parties have sent a bill dated 01.12.2020 for the period from 15.09.2020 to 15.11.2020 in which 2230 units have been shown as consumed units and an amount of Rs.92,045/- was shown as bill amount, whereas no such units of electricity were consumed by the complainant and the complainant is using the alleged connection for his personal use. Bill of Rs.92045 after due date it became Rs.94770/-. As per complainant he is regularly paying the electricity bills . The consumption of complainant premises was very less because no such commercial activity was carried out in the premises of the complainant. He is running a small dairy for earning his livelihood. No heavy load is used in the premises. As per Ex.R1 placed on record by the respondent ledger report of account no. DS KNK1-1932N the connected load of the alleged connection is 1.8 KW connected load. The bare perusal of the ledger itself shows that the electricity bills were issued upto the month of 12/2019 on consumption basis and average consumption for last two years is as follows:
02/2018 78 units
4/2018 1202
06/2018 83
08/2018 77
10/2018 87
12/2018 90
02/2019 64
04/2019 304
06/2019 295
08/2019 200
10/2019 150
12/2019 156
6. After that bill for the period 02/20 and 04/20 was issued for units 168 and 304 after considering the premises as locked. Thereafter the meter reading were recorded for the bill 06/20 and consumed units found 8272 old reading 5506, New reading 13778. Thereafter again in the month of December 2020 consumption 2230 whereas in the previous two bills 08/2020 and 10/2020
there is jumping in the meter. As per ledger Ex.R1 the average consumption of less than 300 units in 90% bills of the complainant. Hence there might have been technical fault in the meter of the complainant or there might have been have jump in the alleged meter. However the ground of the opposite party regarding premises locked is wrong because as per photographs placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C7 to Ex.C8, the meter of the complainant is installed at the electric pole outside the house of complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the meter of the complainant and expenses of the same be incurred by the opposite party. It is further directed that account of the complainant be overhauled for the period 06/2020 and 12/2020 on the basis of average consumption for the period 4/2019 to 12/2019 and to issue a fresh bill to the complainant for that period without any surcharge. Opposite parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and 3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant and to adjust the same in future bills of the complainant. 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:
09.11.2021.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
