Haryana

Karnal

CC/178/2020

Karan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjiv Kamboj

11 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 178 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.19.05.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:11.03.2024

 

Karam Singh @ Karma aged about 55 years son of Shri Paras Ram, resident of Vijay Nagar, Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Sector-6, Panchkula thorugh its Managing Director.
2. Sub Divisional Officer(OP) Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Ram Nagar, Sub Division, Karnal.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Sanjeev Kamboj, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Manoj Kumar Sachdeva, counsel for the OPs.

 

                     (Dr. Suman Singh, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is the consumer of OPs having electricity connection bearing no.RN-18-2910-DS, which is a domestic connection and complainant since the day of installation of the said connection has been regularly paying the electricity charges to the UHBVN Ltd./OP The said electricity connection is for DS purpose and is having sanctioned load of 1.00 KW only. The average bi-monthly bill of said connection is Rs.500/-. Complainant received a bill dated 22.02.2020 for the period of 30.09.2019 to 30.01.2020 for an amount of Rs.518814/- for 204 units. The said bill is quite illegal, null and void and not binding upon the complainant. The said amount is neither due nor recoverable from the complainant. Prior to this a notice was sent to complainant in which it is stated that the meter was tested in M&T Lab in which reading was observed as 770967.6 whereas the fact is that at the time of removing of meter the reading was not visible. As per bills approximate consumption is from 300-400 units and in 1KW load the units consumed 70967.6 is impossible. On receipt of the bill, the complainant contacted the OP and asked for withdrawing the said bill as same is not regarding the actual consumption of electricity by complainant. Furthermore, the said connection is for DS purpose and it is not possible for a person to use electricity of 518814 in a month. OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and also threatened the complainant that the electricity connection will be disconnected, if the said amount is not paid. Due to this act and conduct of the OP, complainant has suffered great mental pain, agony and harassment as well as financial loss. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

 2.            On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that for a period of four years, the bills were being sent to the complainant on average basis at the rate of 50 units per month. The aforesaid meter was removed from the site on 31.01.2019, vide LL-1 no.104/2591 and at that time the reading was not visible. The said meter was then sent to the M&T Lab. for detection of reading. In the M&T Lab. the meter was checked and its reading was found to be 70967.9 and then the account of the complainant was overhauled by the office of the OP and an amount of Rs.5,18,814/- were found due towards him. After that notice bearing memo no.2211 dated 23.01.2020 was issued to the complainant for making payment of said amount but he did not bother for same and then said amount was transferred in the account of the complainant and bill dated 22.02.2020 has been rightly and legally sent to the complainant. The complainant is bound to pay the same. It is further pleaded that complainant is regular defaulter in making payment of bills as he has not even paid any amount towards the current bills for which the bill dated 25.10.2019 and February, 2020 has been issued to him in which the monthly reading consumed is shown as 450 units and 352 respectively.  The OP has been adopting due and legal procedure for the recovery of their outstanding amount. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of electricity bill dated 30.01.2020 to 30.09.2019 Ex.C1, copy of electricity bill dated nil Ex.C2, copy of sundry Ex.C3, copy of sales manual 2013 Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 03.10.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Aditi Ram SDO Ex.OP1/A, copy of LL-1 checking report/meter change report Ex.OP2, copy of M&T lab. report Ex.OP3, copy of notice dated 23.01.2020 regarding recovery of amount Ex.OP4, copy of calculation of recovery amount Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on 27.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is having a domestic electricity connection and paying the electricity charges regularly. The sanctioned load of said connection is 1.00 KW only. The average bi-monthly bill of said connection is Rs.500/-only. Complainant received a bill dated 22.02.2020 for the period of 30.09.2019 to 30.01.2020 for an amount of Rs.518814/-, which is on higher side. At the time of removing of meter the reading was not visible. As per bills approximate consumption is from 300-400 units and in 1KW load the units consumed 70967.6 is impossible. On receipt of the bill, complainant approached the OPs and requested to correct the said bill and issued the bill as per actual consumption but OPs did not listen the complainant and refused to correct the same and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the meter of complainant was removed from the site on 31.01.2019, and at that time the reading was not visible. In the M&T Lab. the meter was checked and its reading was found as 70967.9 and then the account of the complainant was overhauled by the office of the OPs and an amount of Rs.5,18,814/- were found due towards him. A notice dated 23.01.2020 was issued to the complainant for making payment of said amount but complainant did not bother to pay the same. Thus, the bill dated 22.02.2020 has rightly been sent to the complainant. The complainant is regular defaulter in making payment of bills and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           The complainant is using the electricity connection no.RN-18-2910-DS of 1 KW. The complainant has challenged the bill dated 22.02.2020 for the period of 30.09.2019 to 30.01.2020 amounting to Rs.5,18,814/- on the ground that he has paid the electricity charges regularly as per actual consumption and nothing is due against him.

11.           Meter of the complainant was removed from the site on 21.01.2019, at that time reading was not visible. The said meter was sent to M& T laboratory for testing and reading was found to be 70967.9 units. Prior to removing the meter, bills were being sent to the complainant on average basis for last four years and complainant was depositing the same. Admittedly, bill dated 22.02.2020 amounting to Rs.518814/- is for the last five years. As per section 56(2) of Electricity Act, 2003 no sum due from any consumer under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity. Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, wherein it has been mentioned as under:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum  due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became  first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the license shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.”

 

12.           The similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble  Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others Vs. Permanent Lok Adalat and another in CWP-6219-2019 (O&M), date of decision 08.03.2019 and latest law titled as Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Banta Singh (deceased) through LRs in CM-4780 and 4782-C of 2021, in/and RSA no.1074 of 2021 ()&M), date of decision 22.02.2023.

13.           The meter was sent to M& T Laboratory for testing and as per laboratory report Ex.OP3, no tempering was observed. At the time of testing complainant was not called by the OPs. This fact has not been denied by the OP. Thus, the said report is not admissible in the eyes of law. In this regard, we relied upon the case law titled as Tarsem Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 584 (P&H) date of decision 01.04.2002 wherein it is held that at the time of testing of defective meter, the presence of consumer should be done. A notice should be given to the consumer or his representative about the date, time and place of the testing of meter.               

14.           Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and case law, we are of the considered view that the OPs have failed to prove the charging of bill relating to the reading of 70967.6 by any cogent and convincing evidence. OPs had issued the bill of Rs.5,18,814/- on the basis of presumption and assumption and not as per the actual consumption.  OPs have given new connection after removing the old meter and at the time of removing of meter the reading was not visible as alleged by the parties. Hence the demand of the OPs on the basis of higher units amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

15.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to overhaul the account of complainant and to issue the electricity bills according to the average  meter-reading of succeeding six months from the disputed period by receiving the consumption charges without imposing any surcharge and penalty. In case of any amount out of demanded amount is deposited by the complainant, same may also be refunded or adjusted in the account of the complainant. OP is also directed to issue the subsequent electricity bills as per the actual consumption and complainant is also bound to clear the same. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced

Dated:11.03.2024                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Suman Singh)

  Member                   Member