Haryana

Panchkula

CC/163/2016

RISHABH SHARMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

ANJU SURI.

25 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                         

Consumer Complaint No.	:	163 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	01.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	25.01.2017

 

Rishabh Sharma aged about 36 years S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma, resident of House No. 813, Sector 10, Panchkula at present resident of House No. 849, Excel Society, Sector 48-A, Chandigarh.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Managing Director Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

 

2. Executive Engineer, OP City Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Power Colony, Industrial Area, Panchkula.

 

3. Sub Divisional Officer, OP City Sub Division. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Power Colony, Industrial Area, Panchkula.

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Ms. Anju Suri, Advocate for complainant.

                             Mr.Y.P.Rana, Adv., for the Ops.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that he was a tenant of Shri Roshan Lal Khaunduja in respect of the house No. 813, Sector 10, Panchkula, at a monthly rent of Rs. 14,000/- per month, exclusive of electricity and water charges which were to be paid by the complainant. He took the house on rent in the month of April 2013  (Annexure C-5) and stayed there till March, 2016. Shri Roshan Lal Khanduja had purchased the house in question from its earlier owner namely Smt. Lalita Rawal vide sale deed executed on 28.06.2002 (Annexure C-10). However, till date the electricity connection was in the name of Smt. Lalita Rawal. The account number was 2113202UPC290072, now the same stands changed to A/C No. 8555140000. The complainant was paying the bills regularly as per the bills raised by the Ops. The details of the bill issued to the complainant w.e.f April 2014 to April 2016 are reproduced hereunder:-

Bill Date	Unit Consumed	Amount (In Rs.)
12.04.2014	214 Units	1240.00
10.06.2014	402 Units	2052.00
13.08.2014	1418 Units	8670.00
11.10.2014	1044 Units	6028.00
07.12.2014	327 Units	2681.00
10.02.2015	282 Units	1574.00
19.04.2015	442 Units	2362.00
12.06.2015	333 Units	1735.00
31.08.2015	1023 Units	8657.00
13.10.2015	793 Units	6214.00
12.12.2015	298 Units	1245.00
29.04.2016	Impugned Bill	81010.00

 

It is alleged that the meter was installed outside the house and running very fast. After repeated reminders, the new meter was installed. The old meter was sent to the laboratory for testing and the report of the Laboratory was OK. As the meter was replaced, in 56 days the units consumed were 217 units, whereas as per the old meter 1154 units were consumed in four days and in February 2016 the total units consumed were 7775. Thus, the exaggerated bill was raised by the OP No. 3. The other bills which were raised by the Ops, were duly paid during the tenancy period. It is alleged that the bill issued on 19.04.2015 was also faulty and the complainant had orally represented to the OP No. 3 that the reading shown in the bill was not the actual reading and a person be deputed. On asking of the complainant on 01.05.2015 the reading was corrected and the bill was rectified and he was charged for 442 units. As per the impugned bill, the complainant was asked to pay Rs. 81,010/-. After repeated requests made by the complainant, the OP No. 3 asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- which was deposited on 29.04.2016. It is alleged that since the complaint was posted somewhere else, as such his father-in-law was not satisfied with the Laboratory Test of the meter and as such also gave a representation on 29.04.2016 for getting the meter checked from some other Laboratory or agency to know the exact fault in the meter. The letter was given to the Op No. 3. In order to get the meter checked, the necessary fee was also deposited on 03.02.2016. It would not be out of place to mention here that on 31.01.2016, the meter reader had come to the premises of the complainant and informed that the meter was faulty, as it was showing exaggerated reading and the complaint be lodged with the office for replacement of the same and accordingly the complaint was lodged 02.02.2016. No official from the office of the OP No. 3 came from 02.02.2016 to 04.02.2016, though, the father-in-law of the complainant went personally on the said dates, however, on 05.02.2016 the father-in-law of the complainant again personally went to the office of OP No. 3 and requested them to depute some official but the OP NO. 3 put off the matter on the pretext that nobody was readily available for going to the premises and after repeated requests the OP No. 3 directed the father-in-law to come after lunch. Accordingly, the father-in-law of the complainant went after lunch but nobody was available and when repeated request were made to the OP No. 3 he got agitated over the matter and deputed an official who went to the house and prepared a checking report and a new meter was installed, however, there was wrong mention that there were 2 fridges and 3 TVs at the spot. The complainant had been approaching the OP No 3 personally also for waving the bill completely as the meter was faulty and the electricity had not been consumed. Thereafter, another complaint was given on 15.06.2016 during the entire facts that how the bill of Rs. 81,010.00 has been raised as it has been shown that the units consumed were 775+1154+217 units. If the complainant had consumed 217 units in 56 days the reading of 775 and 1154 was totally erratic. The impugned bill was highly exaggerated and not as per the actual reading and when the bill dated 12.04.2016 was brought to the knowledge of the OP No. 3, wherein 4 days 1154 units had been shown to be consumed after the change of the meter, then he struck the same and asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The complainant had left the tenanted premises, still he being a law abiding citizen, did not want to have any issue with the Ops. However, the Ops had not taken any action on the representation of the complainant and had not corrected the bill in question. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2. The Ops appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable. It is submitted that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and concealed true & material facts from this Forum. It is submitted that the matter of record except that the bill dated 29.04.2016 had not been paid by the complainant. It is submitted that the bill was issued by the OP as per consumed unit but the complainant had not paid the bill for the units consumed and the meter was changed on the request of the complainant. It is submitted that the OP has issued the bill as per consumption of unit by the complainant.  It is submitted that the complainant since April, 2014 till April, 2016 was attached along with the reply and old meter was O.K. and the old meter was changed on the request of the complainant on April, 2016. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. The complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the Ops has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the case file and documents placed on record.
5. Admittedly, the complainant was tenant of Shri Roshan Lal Khaunduja at a monthly rent of Rs. 14,000/- per month from April 2013 to March, 2016 (Annexure C-7 and C-9). Shri Roshan Lal Khanduja had purchased the house in question on 28.06.2002 (Annexure C-10). The electricity connection is still in the name of Smt. Lalita Rawal, the previous owner. As per the complainant, he was paying the bills of electricity regularly. However, during the month of January 2016, the meter reader had come to the premises of the complainant and informed that the meter is faulty as it is showing exaggerated reading. The complainant lodged the complaint on 02.02.2016 with the Ops and deposited the necessary fee to get the meter checked on 03.02.2016 (Annexure C-4), but no official came during the period from 02.02.2016 to 04.02.2016. However, on 05.02.2016, the official of the Ops visited the premises and prepared checking report (Annexure R-2). The old meter was removed for sending the same in MLT Lab and the new meter was installed. Test Report dated 15.03.2016 was received by the Ops and the meter was started to be OK. The complainant made the representation on 29.04.2016 against the above said report and started that he is not satisfied with the report as the new meter has shown 2017 units in 56 days and the old meter was showing 1154 in 4 days. In February 2016, the units consumed have been shown 775 which are not believable. The complainant has requested the send the meter to another agency and settle the dispute. But the Ops have not taken any action in this regard. The consumption record (Annexure R-3) of the complainant has been placed on file by the OP from December 2013 to April 2016. On perusal, it shows that during the month of December 2015 the units consumed have been shown 7775 and during the month of February the units have been shown 1154+217, which are on higher side during the period from December 2013 to April 2016. The new meter has shown 217 units in 56 days whereas the old meter had shown 1154 units in four days.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above the charging of Rs. 81,010/- vide bill dated 29.04.2016 (Annexure C-1) from the complainant who is a domestic consumer does not appear to be legally reasonable and this imposition of the amount is not on the basis of actual consumption.
7. In view of the above, the complaint is allowed and demand of Rs. 81,010/- by the Ops is ordered to be quashed with the direction to the Ops to charge from the complainant on the basis of the preceding year of the same month. The Ops are further directed that the amount deposited by the complainant may be adjusted.
8. Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced

 25.01.2017                        ANITA KAPOOR                            DHARAM PAL

                                            MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

 

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

    

 

                                 

                                                     DHARAM PAL

                                                              PRESIDENT