Haryana

Panchkula

CC/234/2015

MOHINDER KAUR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITREAN NIGAM LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

A.K. VIRDI.

10 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.

                                                          Complaint No.:    234 of 2015

                                                Date of Instt.:       21.10.2015

                                 Date of Decision:  10.05.2016

Smt.Mohinder Kaur w/o Ashok Kumar Virdi r/o House No.164 Sector 21, Panchkula.        

                                                                                       ….Complainant

                                       Versus

1. MD/UHBVN Vidyut Sadan C-16, Sector 6 Panchkula.
2. SE/Op Circle UBHVN Ambala.
3. XEN/Oo Divn.UHBVN Panchkula
4. SDO Sub Urban Sub Division UHBVN Panchkula
5. SK Goel SDO Sub Urban Sub Division UHBVN Panchkula.

                                                                             …Opposite Parties.

          Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

BEFORE:             Mr.Dharam Pal, President.                                                                                   Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Sh.S.P.Attri, Member

Argued by:           Sh.A.K.Virdi, Adv. for the complainant.

                             Sh. Y.P.Rana, Adv. for the OPs.

                                       ORDER

 

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

                            

1.                          The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties with the averments that she is a consumer of the OPs having electric connection bearing account No.A27 PS-31/2218Y. Since the meter was running fast for the last many years, therefore, it was checked by the officials of Ops on 19^th of June, 2014.  On checking, the meter was found defective; therefore, it was replaced with new one.  The old meter was recording upto 100 units per day and the newly installed meter was recording correct consumption ranging up to 30 units per day comparing to another meter having almost same connected load, installed at the first floor of her house.  She requested the SDO to send the meter to M&T Lab under intimation vide Memo No.Spl 3 dated 27^th June, 2014.  In the bill No.03118 new reading was depicted as 0120 with old reading as 1 but units consumed were shown as 2791. She deposited Rs.5,000/- with the Ops on 08.08.14 as per the order of Ops No.4 & 5. As per the SMI Clause 4.10 the OP No.4 was bound to install check meter and compare the consumption of both meters over a period of one week. Period of around 8 months have lapsed but her account has not been overhauled on the basis of consumption pattern of new meter despite making requests as it was showing consumption of 9.9 KW against the consumption of 6.9 KW load recorded by previous/defective old meter.  On 26.06.2015 the concerned SDO refused to overhaul the account of the complainant.  The complainant got served a legal notice dated 24.08.2015 upon the Ops but despite that they failed to perform their duties/service forcing her to file the present complaint. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service.   In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit and documents Annexure CA, Annexure C2 to Annexure C12.

2.                          The OPs appeared and filed their joint reply contesting the complaint of the complainant on various grounds.  It has been submitted that the meter was replaced on dated 23.06.2014 on the request of the complainant but the same was not defective.  The consumption data from December 2013 to June, 2014 was uniform which shows that the meter was correct. The meter was sent to L&T lab but it was found working slow.  The bill issued on 04.08.2014 but the new reading was taken on 20.07.2014 and at that time there were 120 units. Units 2791 belongs to the units consumed in old meter and thus entire units were shown together in the electricity bill.   The consumption of old meter and new meter were approximately uniform which shows that the old meter was not defective, therefore, there is no need of overhauling the account. Lastly, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. The Ops have tendered affidavit and document Annexure RA and Annexure R1 in evidence.

3.                          Heard. We have examined the pleadings and documents of the parties very carefully.

4.                                             It would be apparent from a conjunctive perusal of the pleadings made by the parties that the complainant has been all along asking for the earlier meter being tested and also for the test being conducted in her presence. As per the averment made by the OPs, the test was indeed conducted but not in the presence of the complainant. There is a precise averment by the complainant in the complaint that she was making a plea for association with the proceedings for testing of the removed meter “particularly being vary of fudging of tests results”. She had said so in the course of her communication addressed to the OPs and she reiterated that plea when a named Sub Divisional Officer was contacted in his office on 08.08.2014 with the request aforementioned.

5.                                             The complainant is in the know of the relevant instructions (which she has quoted as Annexure C-3) as her husband retired as Chief Engineer from DHBVN. (That averment appears in the very first para of the complaint).

6.                                             It is not the plea of the OPs that the holding of test had even been notified to the complainant, muchless a request having been directed at her to be present at the time of testing of the meter under reference. In that view of things, it is not appropriate on the part of the OPs to aver in the course of the reply that “consumption in the old and new meter remains approximately uniform”. In law, an adjudication has to come about on the basis of the pleadings which are tested on the touchstone of legality. The nomenclature used in the reply (“approximately is foreign to the Justice Delivery System inasmuchas the grievance of a complainant cannot be denied just because the relief to be given may not be of a large measure”).

7.                                             In the light of forgoing discussion, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the resistance offered by the OPs to the overhauling of the relevant account for the proceedings six months. Irrespective of the outcome of the overhauling, the exercise (of overhauling) cannot be validly denied to the complainant, particularly when she was not a party to the testing exercise of the meter.

8.                                             While, thus, allowing the complaint on a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs vis-à-vis the complainant, we would order that: -

a)   The OPs shall overhaul the account of the Complainant for the indicated six months duration. The complainant shall be entitled to the benefit of the outcome of the exercise aforementioned.

b)  The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in service as also mental harassment caused to her by the non-affording of an opportunity to her to be present at the time of testing of the meter.

c)   The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as the cost of litigation.

9.                                             The OPs shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to them comes about. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

10.05.2016  S.P.ATTRI    ANITA KAPOOR          DHARAM PAL

  MEMBER                MEMBER                   PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.      

 

                                                                                      ANITA KAPOOR                                                                                                                                                MEMBER