Haryana

Karnal

CC/252/2019

Mini Mehta Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

R.K.Mehta

09 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 252 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.06.05.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:09.05.2022

 

Mini Mehta, Advocate, Chamber no.169, District Courts, Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Utri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its Sub Divisional Officer, OP City Division, near Bus Stand, District Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member.

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

           

 Argued by: Shri R.K. Mehta, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Yashbir Singh, counsel for OP.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments complainant is practicing as an Advocate in District Courts, Karnal and is having a Chamber no.169 in Lawyers Complex, District Courts, Karnal, the complainant is having domestic electricity connection bearing no.4009910000. The regular bill of consumption of electricity was being paid by the complainant to the OP and nothing is pending against him. The average consumption of the premises of the complainant is Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- for every two months. It is worth mentioning here that there was only one CPL Tube of 15 Watt and only one ceiling fan was installed in the office of the complainant. There was no AC or any other electric gadget was being used till March, 2018. As such the consumption of electricity was very meager one. The connection of the complainant comes under the definition of Domestic Supply, where the bills are sending under Non-Domestic Supply. The OP was sending the Bill on reading basis and complainant was paying the same regularly without fail. Due to short circuit some meters installed in the premises were got fired and since the department is sending the bills on average basis. The complainant moved an application on 11.11.2014 for checking of the meter, the meter was checked by the official of OP on 22.11.2014 which they clearly mentioned that the Display of the meter is not working then the meter was changed, thereafter since then the official/s of the OP is sending the bill on Average Basis not according to the reading of the meter because the MCO was not entered in the record of the department of the OP. In the month of April, 2018, the complainant installed the AC in her Chamber. The complainant was surprised and astonished when the official of the OP, is sending the bills on average basis and lastly in the month of August, 2018 bearing no.400990889207 dated 24.08.2018 for a sum of Rs.77583/-. The alleged bill is malafide, fabricated manipulated and forged. After receiving the said bill complainant visited the office of OP several times and requested to correct the bill as per the reading, but officials of the OP always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.5000/- in the month of January, 2019. The official of the OP assured the complainant that the next bill, will be issued correctly but complainant again shocked when she received the bill dated 25.04.2019 as per average basis not according to the reading, where the old reading was shown 1031 and new reading shown as 5841 and unit consumed 4809.2 and unit billed 276.46 and bill basis shown as average. It is also pertinent to mention here that the bill is shown as NDS instead of DS because the office of the Advocates comes under the definition of domestic supply. The alleged bill which has been based upon the average basis not according to the reading in the meter is totally illegal and unjustified, the complainant approached the OP to rectify and correct the alleged bill/bills so many times, but OP has not given done so. 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; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Revision no.3311 of 2012 that section 2(1)(d) 2(1)(g) 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act Consumer Electricity connection for non-domestic use i.e. for commercial purpose contention that, the non-domestic does not automatically become commercial especially when the motive of the petitioner is benevolent for a social cause, nor for making products and selling them in the market for profit gain, cannot be accepted. And same has also been held in revision petition no.3191 of 2009 and 1528 of 2015. This has also been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in civil appeal titled as UP Power Corporation Vs. Anis Ahmad bearing no.5466 of 2012. In this case the complainant has been using NDS purpose and using electricity for gain. It is further pleaded that the bill mentioned in the complaint was issued according to the actual consumption of electricity because after 28.02.2015 the complainant has paid only Rs.5000/- only on 02.01.2019 and beside this she has not paid even a single penny to the OP. It is worthwhile to mention here that there was some mistake in the bills of the complainant and that too were removed and overhauled by doing adjustment of Rs.58029/- in bill dated 17.05.2019 and the balance amount payable is Rs.86915/- as per bill on dated 17.05.2019. Further, in the bill dated 12.09.2019 adjustment of Rs.58858.98 has been made in the account of the complainant and the actual amount of Rs.61246/- is due and outstanding against the complainant. It is further pleaded that the bill sent to the complainant is quite legal and valid and is regarding the actual consumption of electricity consumed by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of application to SDO dated 11.11.2014 Ex.C1, copies of electricity bills Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant on 22.3.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vinay Kumar SDO Ex.OP1/A, copy of statement of account Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2, copy of summary of account Ex.OP3, copies of bills dated 17.05.2019, 06.08.2021, 10.06.2021, 17.05.2019 and 12.09.2019 Ex.OP4 to Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP on 25.08.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for OPs 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 submitted that complainant is practicing as an Advocate in District Courts, Karnal and is having a Chamber no.169 in Lawyers Complex, District Courts, Karnal. The complainant is having domestic electricity connection bearing no.4009910000 in her chamber. Complainant paid the electricity bill regularly. The average consumption of the premises of the complainant is Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- for every two months. He further argued that the connection of the complainant comes under  the definition of Domestic Supply, where the bills are sending under Non-Domestic Supply. He further argued that due to short circuit some meters installed in the premises were got fired and since the department is sending the bills on average basis. The complainant moved an application on 11.11.2014 for checking of the meter, the meter was checked by the official of OP on 22.11.2014 which they clearly mentioned that the Display of the meter is not working then the meter was changed, thereafter since then the official/s of the OP is sending the bill on Average Basis not according to the reading of the meter because the MCO was not entered in the record of the department of the OP. He further argued that in the month of April, 2018, the complainant installed the AC in her Chamber. In the month of August, 2018 OP sent a bill of Rs.77583/-. The alleged bill is malafide, fabricated manipulated and forged. After receiving the said bill complainant visited the office of OP several times and requested to correct the bill as per the reading, but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.5000/- in the month of January, 2019. The official of the OP assured the complainant that the next bill, will be issued correctly but complainant again shocked when she received the bill dated 25.04.2019 as per average basis not according to the reading. Complainant approached the OP for rectification of the said bill but OP did not pay any heed to his genuine request. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per-contra, learned counsel for OP, while reiterating the contentions of written version, has vehemently argued that bill was issued according to the actual consumption of electricity, because after 28.02.2015 the complainant has paid Rs.5000/- only on 02.01.2019 and beside this she has not paid even a single penny to the OP.  He further argued that there was some mistake in the bills of the complainant and that too were removed and overhauled by doing adjustment of Rs.58029/- in bill dated 17.05.2019 and the balance amount payable was Rs.86915/- as per bill dated 17.05.2019. Further, in the bill dated 12.09.2019 adjustment of Rs.58858.98 has been made in the account of the complainant and the actual amount of Rs.61246/- is due and outstanding against the complainant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

10.           Admittedly, complainant is having an electricity connection bearing no.40099100. In the year of 2014 complainant moved an application Ex.C1 with regard to occurring the defect in the electricity meter installed in the chamber of the complainant and the meter was changed. After that from dated 28.02.2015 to 02.01.2019 complainant has paid only Rs.5000/- i.e. 02.01.2019. This fact has not been denied by the complainant.

11.           On receipt of the complaint, there was some mistakes in the bills of the complainant and that were removed and overhauled by doing the adjustment of Rs.58029/- it has been proved from the bill Ex.OP4 dated 17.05.2019 and the balance amount payable was Rs.86915/-. Further, in the bill Ex.C5 dated 12.09.2019 and adjustment of Rs.58858.98 has been made in the account of the complainant and the amount of Rs.61246/- was due, but complainant has not paid a single penny with the OP.

12.           During the course of arguments learned counsel for the complainant placed on record sale circular no.UT-08/2021 and submits that OP had issued the alleged bills on the very higher side and not as per the said circular. From a reading of the abovesaid circular it is amply clear that said circular applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021 but the disputed bills are very much prior from the said circular. The implication of the said circular is of retrospective effect.

13.           As per version of the complainant, the average consumption of the premises of the complainant was Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- for every two months, prior to installation of the AC in the chamber in the month of April, 2018, she installed the AC which was installed in the month of April, 2018. But it has been proved on record that complainant has not paid a single penny after 02.01.2019 and continuously using the electricity consumption. Since, the complainant has been enjoying facility of electricity from 28.02.2015 after the installation of AC in month of April, 2018 and she had paid only Rs.5000/- in the year, 2019. It is very much hard to believe that the complainant has used electricity of such nominal charges for which she is seeking.  Thus, we are of the considered view that the bills issued by the OPs are as per actual consumption. Hence, present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed accordingly.

14.           Misc. application no.03 dated 14.03.2022 also disposed of accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:09.05.2022

 

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                    Member                         Member