Haryana

Ambala

CC/415/2022

RAM CHANDER. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

AJAY SINGH ,CLERK

21 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	415 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	14.11.2022
Date of decision	:	21.11.2024

Ram Chander, aged about 61 years, son of Sh. Des Raj, resident of H.No. 1323/24, Badshahi Bagh, Ambala City (Mob. No.9896153347)

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through Executive Engineer, Operation Division UHBVN, Ambala City, Jasmeet Nagar, Behind Royal Palace, Near Vita Milk Plant, Kalka Chowk, Ambala City.
2. SDO Operation, Sub-Division UHBVN, East, Badshahi Bagh, Ambala City. 

….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:          Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                        Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member          

 

Present:       Shri Saravjeet Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                     Shri Chandeep Singh Bindra, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1.      To recall the demand of sundry charges of Rs.10,27,645/- first time made vide bill dated 13.06.2022.

      ii.   To pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, deprivation and harassment and also on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

   iii.                                        To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit. 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant was purchased H.No. 1323/24, Badshahi Bagh, Ambala City from its previous owner in the month of October 2011. The previous owner purchased the said house from Shri Shashi Gupta in the year of 2009/2010. In the above mentioned house an electricity connection of domestic supply category with a sanctioned load of 8.00KW stands installed in the name of the said Shashi Gupta vide account No.4901820000. In the said house, the electricity being supplied by the OPs against the above mentioned electricity connection and the complainant is consuming the electricity from the date of its purchase and was paying the bill amount regularly. Since, the complainant had been receiving the bills from the OPs on average basis for the past one year, therefore, on 02.04.2021, he moved an application before OP No.2, whereby he requested to check the reading and supply the bills to him as per the actual consumption. On the application of the complainant, thereafter the officials of the OP No.2 visited the site and reported the status of the meter to the OP No.2. After having received the status the OP No.2 directed the complainant to challenge the functioning of the meter. Accordingly, the complainant challenge the functioning of the meter. On 05.08.2021, the officials of the OP No.2 visited the house of the complainant and replace the existing meter with the new one vide checking report i.e LL-1 No.38/12348. In the said report, the reading of the removed meter has been shown as not visible. Thereafter, the meter was checked in the presence of the complainant in M&T Lab on 03.01.2022. The result of the checking in M&T Lab was reduced to writing in the shape of report dated 03.01.2022. From the perusal of the said report it is clear that the working and functioning of the meter was not checked in M& T Lab. The report of M & T Lab does not disclose anywhere as to whether the functioning/working of the meter was accurate or not. The observation in the report of M & T Lab to the effect that reading was retrieved by giving supply to the meter and the retrieved reading was 167295 K.W. is also fictitious as the supply of electricity was always there in the meter even at the site. No creep-test was performed in M& T Lab to ascertain if the meter was prone to jumping or not. In view of the facts stated in this para of the complaint it cannot be said that the reading as stated in report of M& T Lab dated 03.01.2022 i.e 167295 Units is genuine and as per actual consumption of the complainant. It is not out of place to mention here that the signatures of the complainant were obtained on the performa of the report of M &T Lab before the test was performed and report was prepared. The signatures of complainant were obtained by the officials of M&T Lab stating that the same were being obtained for the purpose of registering the presence of the complainant in M&T lab. It is mandatory as per the directions of UHBVNL i.e OP No.1 to do the videography of the entire process of checking of meter in M&T Lab but the same was not deliberately done in the case of complainant as the OPs wanted to hide their own failure to discharge the official duties as despite the meter having gone defective for a considerable length of time was not replaced with the new meter by the OP No.2 which is contrary to the directions of UHBVNL/OP No.1 which mandates the replacement of meter by the OP No.2 within a month from the day it becomes defective. Vide bill dated 13.06.2022, the OP No.2 arbitrarily demanded Rs.10,27,645/-, as sundry charges. After receiving the said bill complainant immediately contacted the OP No.2 and inquired about raising of demand of huge sundry charges. OP No.2 told him that it had overhauled the account of the complainant from 13.12.2018 to 05.08.2021 during the said period 138092 units of electricity were consumed. The OPs raised the said demand on the basis of the report of M & T Lab wherein last reading was wrongly mentioned as 167295 units. Complainant told the OP No.2 that the report of M & T lab was never supplied to him and after the checking of the meter, the officials present there told him that display was defective so the meter reading could not be retrieved. Complainant told the OP No.2 that the report of M& T Lab was fictitious and he had already paid the bills raised by the OPs for the period from 13.12.2018 to 05.08.2021 and requested the OPs to recall the demand of Rs.10,27,645/-, raised vide bill dated 13.06.2022, but nothing was done by them. As such, the OPs have not only committed deficiency in service but also indulged into unfair trade practice, hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to no locus standi, not maintainable and not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts etc. On merits, it has been stated that the as per record, electricity connection with sectioned load of 8 KW bearing account No.4901820000, actually exit in the name of Shashi Gupta wife of Shri Ashok Kumar. The bills were issued for the period from 13.12.2018 to 05.08.2021 on average basis as the meter status was shown faulty and then the official of the OPs visited the premises of the complainant on 05.08.2021 and checked the meter of the complainant vide LL-1 book No.12348/38 dated 05.08.2021 and during checking of the meter in the presence of the complainant, meter found NV (reading not visible), meter packed in the card box duly sealed with Khakhi tape duly signed by the complainant and checking team and the same was sent to M & T Lab Dhulkot for examination and for retrieving the reading of meter. The report was prepared at the spot which was duly signed by the complainant and the checking team. The meter was checked in the presence of the complainant in M & T Lab on 03.01.2022. It is further stated that during checking the official of the OPs retrieved the reading of the meter by giving supply to the meter and final reading was recorded/retrieved as 167295 KWH and no tempering was found in the meter during the internal examination of the meter. Videography was done as witness. The report of M & T Lab was reduced in writing which bears the signatures of the complainant and the checking team. It is further stated that after getting the retrieved reading of the meter in question from M & T Lab Dhulkot, the account of the complainant was overhauled from 13.12.2018 to 05.08.2021 and an amount of Rs.10,82,148/- on account of consumption charges consumed by the complainant was calculated as per the retrieved reading. However, the OPs deducted Rs.55,107 (already paid by the complainant for the period from 13.12.2018 to 05.08.2021) from amount of Rs.10,82,148/- and charged Rs.10,27,645/- of 140,140units i.e 138092 units (167295-29203) of old meter and 2048 units of new meter after making all the adjustment and the complainant is liable to pay the overhauled amount of Rs.10,27,645/-. Vide memo No.2256 dated 12.04.2022, the OPs raised the demand of Rs.10,27,645/- but the complainant failed to pay the same and then the said amount was claimed in the bill dated 13.06.2022 and the complainant is liable to pay the said amount. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure C-X alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Vaibhav, SDO (OP)Sub Division (East), UHBVN, Ambala City and Harish Goyal, presently posted as S.D.O Sub Division Model Town, UHBVN, Ambala City as Annexure OP/A and OP/B respectively alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the case file and also gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant was present in the M & T Lab, Dhulkot at the time of checking of the meter and he signed the checking report. However, the OPs made alterations in the said report, after obtaining his signatures, as is evident from the CD, Annexure C-7. By doing so, the OPs have not only committed deficiency in providing service but also indulged into unfair trade practice. 
7.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs submitted that since the OPs have got the meter in question checked from the M & T Lab, Dhulkot and that too in the presence of the complainant, wherein it was clearly opined that reading of meter in question retrieved by giving supply to it; that reading has been retrieved as 107295 KWH and that no tempering inside the meter was found. He further submitted that there was no flaw in testing procedure and no alteration was made in the checking report. The CD produced by the complainant is fake and has no value in the eyes of law.  The OPs were right in raising the bill in question to the tune of Rs.10,27,645/-  as sundry charges.
8.           The moot question which falls for consideration in the present case is, as to whether, the OPs were justified in raising bill amount to the extent of Rs.10,27,645/-, as sundry charges, from the complainant, vide bill dated 13.6.2022, Annexure C-5, in respect of consumption of units via the meter in question for the period referred to above or not? From the perusal of  checking report of meter dated 03.01.2022 Annexure C-3/OP-6, it is evident that the said report has been signed by complainant also by the experts, wherein it has been opined that reading of meter in question retrieved by giving supply to it; that reading has been retrieved as 107295 KWH and that no tempering inside the meter was found. Furthermore, we did not find anything on this report that any protest has been raised by the complainant while signing it or even thereafter. So far as the CD placed on record by the complainant is concerned, it may be stated here that there is no evidence to suggest that complainant raised any protest in writing to the OPs or the laboratory, regarding alteration made by the OPs, in the checking report subsequent to signing the same by him. Even otherwise there is no mention about the CD in the complaint. It was incumbent upon the complainant to immediately object to the matter if he had any concern and his failure to do so at the relevant time renders any subsequent challenge to the process untenable. Moreover, complainant has not produced any contrary report to challenge the veracity of the laboratory report in question. In the absence of such evidence complainant’s allegations remain un-substaintiated and merit no further consideration. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently, we dismiss the same. The parties are left to bear their own costs.  Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

Announced:- 21.11.2024

 

	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
	Member	President

 

 

 

Present:        Shri Saravjeet Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                     Shri Chandeep Singh Bindra, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

 

 

 

Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.

Announced on :21.11.2024.

 

 

 

                   (Ruby Sharma)                                 (Neena Sandhu)

                    Member                                            President