Haryana

Ambala

CC/400/2019

Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

XEN UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

21 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA

Complaint case no.	:	400 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	15.11.2019
Date of decision	:	21.11.2022

Raj Kumar, age about 52 years son of Sh.Munshi Ram, R/o Village Chudiala, Tehsil  Ambala Cantt, District Ambala.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. The XEN Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Ambala Cantt.
2. The SDO Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Kesri, District Ambala

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:-     None for the complainant.

                             Shri Pardeep Bansal, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’).  

2.            Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a consumer of OPs as electricity is being provided to him by OP No.2, vide account no. KD16-1256Y (old A/c No. C2459), for which he is paying the electricity bill regularly. However, to his utter surprise, the OPs issued bill, Annexure C-4 for an amount of Rs.39,803/- towards electricity consumption for the period from 30.6.2019 to 30.8.2019, which was totally illegal and arbitrary. Resultantly, he approached OP No.2 for redressal of his grievance but to no avail. On the other hand, the complainant had been regularly paying the electricity bills as per his consumption and for the previous cycle i.e. for the period from 30.04.2019 to 30.06.2019,  only an amount of Rs.1515/- has been raised by the OPs. Various written complaints made by the complainant to the OPs in the matter did not yield any result. It has been stated that the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service. It is prayed that in the interest of justice, the present complaint may kindly be allowed and the OPs may be directed to correct the electricity bill for the period from 30.06.2019 to 30.8.2019 as per the actual consumption of the electricity instead of levying excess amount Rs.39,903/-, so that complainant can pay the electricity charges to the OPs without further delay and also penalized the OPs for the unnecessary harassment caused to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.

3.       Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability etc.  On merits, while admitting the factual matrix of the case with regard to installation of electricity meter by the OPs at the premises of the complainant and also raising the bill in question in his favour, which has been challenged in this complaint, it has been stated that  the complainant is in arrear of huge bill amount. On receipt of complaint from the complainant, through Consumer Grievances Redressal System, regarding excess electricity bill aforesaid, the staff of the OPs verified the electricity account of complainant for the last two years and made calculations of the units actually consumed by him. Accordingly, electricity bill of Sep 2019 which was raised by the OPs to the tune of Rs.40,981/- was rectified and an adjustment of Rs.10,813/- was given to the complainant in the bill dated 26.11.2019. However, the complainant failed to pay the consumption charges. The complainant is liable to pay bill dated 26.11.2019 of an amount of Rs.34514/- for actual consumption of electricity but he failed to do so.  The OPs and their staff are working according to the Rules of the Nigam and instructions of the Higher Authority/ Haryana Govt. and the complainant has no right/ authority to interfere in the peaceful working by filing such like complaints without any cause and reasons. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.       Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Shri Atitosh Kumar Singh, UHBVNL, Kesri, District Ambala as Annexure OP-A alongwith Annexure OP-1 to OP-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

5.     Since, none put in appearance on behalf of the complainant, on the date of arguments, as such, we have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and carefully gone through the case file.

6.        Learned counsel for OPs submitted that on receipt of complaint from the complainant regarding excessive electricity bill in question, it was rectified and an adjustment of Rs.10,813/- was given to the complainant in the bill dated 26.11.2019, whereafter, he was asked to make payment of Rs.34514/- for actual consumption of electricity consumed by him but he failed to do so.

7.     The moot question which needs to be decided in this complaint is, as to whether, the OPs were right in raising bill to the tune of Rs.39,803/- towards electricity consumption for the period from 30.6.2019 to 30.8.2019 or even Rs.34,514/- after alleged rectification of the original disputed bill or not? It is significant to mention here that the complainant in order to prove that he could not have utilized such huge units of electricity in his small house for the period from 30.6.2019 to 30.8.2019 has placed on record his previous electricity consumption bill for the period from 30.04.2019 to 30.06.2019,  which shows that he had consumed around/average 300 units, against which the bill raised by the OPs was to the tune of Rs.1515/-. On the other hand, the OPs have  miserably failed to place on record any document, wherefrom, it could be revealed that the complainant has actually consumed more than 5000 units, for the period from 30.6.2019 to 30.8.2019. The OPs could not make it clear as to how, all of a sudden there was such a big jump of 5000 units in the consumption of electricity for the period from 30.6.2019 to 30.8.2019. It is not the version of the OPs that this electricity connection during this period was used for commercial purpose or consumption of electricity increased due to some important functions like marriage etc. in the house or that any construction work was going on in this house or in any nearby house and electricity was used for construction work from this electricity connection.  Even this much has not been proved by the OPs that on receipt of complaint from the complainant regarding excess bill aforesaid, necessary steps to ensure that the meter is defective or not, have been taken by them. On the other hand, on receipt of complaint from the complainant regarding defective meter showing consumption of excessive units, as a result of which huge bill was raised, it was required of the OPs to send the electricity meter installed in the premises of the complainant for testing in distribution company’s laboratory or any other authorized laboratory authorized by State Electricity Regulatory Commission and provide a copy of the said report to the complainant. However, there is nothing on record to prove that such steps were taken by the OPs in this case. Even this much has not been proved by placing on record any cogent and convincing evidence, as to how, the complainant is liable to make payment of  Rs.34,514/-, even, which the OPs claimed after alleged rectification of the electricity bill of Rs.39,803/-. In our considered view, in such a situation the complainant cannot be burdened to pay Rs.34,514/- shown in the bill in question by the OPs, as consumption of electricity by him for the period from 30.06.2019 to 30.08.2019.

8.        Under above circumstances, in our considered opinion, if we order the OPs to raise fresh demand in respect of the electricity consumed by the complainant for the period from 30.6.2019 to 30.8.2019 on average bimonthly consumption of electricity on the electricity connection in question during the previous six months as per instructions given in Clause B of the Sales Circular No.U-29 of 2011 issued on September 07th, 2011 by Chief General Manager, Commercial, Panchkula and Clause 1(b) of Sales Circular No.U-61/2013 issued on December 18th, 2013 by Chief General Manager/Commercial, UHBVN, Panchkula, that will meet the ends of justice. Our this view finds support from the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, in Jagdeep Rana vs Uhbvnl, First Appeal No  :  1109 of 2017 decided on 26 March, 2018, wherein under similar circumstances, while allowing the appeal filed by the complainant, it was held as under:-

“……Moreover, if it be considered that the meter reader mentioned wrongfully the consumption of electricity as 800 units bimonthly and it came to the notice of other officials or officers of the UHBVNL during the previous eight months and due to this reason there was so much increase in the reading of the electricity bill regarding consumption of the electricity. In that eventuality, certainly the total arrears of consumption of electricity should have been mentioned in the electricity bill Exhibit C-2. In this case there is sudden rise in the consumption of the electricity as shown in the electricity bill Exhibit C-2 which is 25 times of the previous six months bimonthly consumption. In the next bimonthly bill Exhibit C-1 the consumption is shown 43 times of the previous six months bimonthly consumption of electricity. In these circumstances, findings cannot be given that increase in the consumption was shown in the electricity bills because during the previous so many months, electricity meter reader recorded wrong figure of consumption of electricity. In our view, if the opposite parties feel that all it happened due to involvement of meter reader or any other official of the opposite parties, in that situation before blaming the complainant, the opposite parties should have taken strict disciplinary action against the meter reader and other officials of the UHBVNL involved. It is strange that in such a situation, the officers of the opposite parties instead of solving the problem and redressing the genuine grievance of the complainant are raising demand of payment of the wrongful bill amount claimed by the opposite parties.

In this situation, only option before us is to give findings that all it happened due to defect in the electricity meter and more particularly due to all of a sudden jumping of the electricity meter.

As per discussions above in detail, as the opposite parties could not give any good and solid reason of issuance of the electricity bills Exhibits C-1 and C-2 mentioning huge amount, it will be justified to quash the above mentioned two electricity bill i.e. bill Exhibit C-2 issued regarding the period from November 30th, 2013 to January 31st, 2014 and the bill Exhibit C-1 regarding the period January 31st, 2014 to March 31st, 2014 and to direct the opposite parties to issue a fresh electricity bill regarding the above mentioned period of four months from November 30th, 2013 to March 31st, 2014 mentioning total bimonthly consumption of electricity in terms of units as 800 (total 1600 units). The opposite parties are directed to issue fresh electricity bills regarding the disputed period on average bimonthly consumption of electricity on this electricity connection during the previous six months as per instructions given in Clause B of the Sales Circular No.U-29 of 2011 issued on September 07th, 2011 by Chief General Manager, Commercial, Panchkula and Clause 1(b) of Sales Circular No.U-61/2013 issued on December 18th, 2013 by Chief General Manager/Commercial, UHBVN, Panchkula in case the domestic electricity meter is found defective, sticky, dead stop, burnt, faulty or inoperative, premises locked, the electricity bill be prepared on the basis of average of last six months. The consumption of the same months of the preceding year is not available, therefore, it will be justified to direct the complainant to pay the electricity bill regarding the above mentioned period treating consumption of electricity in terms of units as 800 being bimonthly average consumption of electricity during the preceding six months. The opposite parties shall also not be entitled to receive surcharge and other electricity charges mentioned in the electricity bills Exhibit C-1 and Exhibit C-2. The complainant shall be liable to make payment of the electricity fuel surcharge etc. considering consumption of electricity on this electricity connection as 1600 units for a period of four months ending on March 31st, 2014…..”

9.        Resultantly, the demands raised by the OPs and also the allied charges, raised in respect of the electricity meter in dispute for the period from 30.6.2019 to 30.8.2019 are quashed. 

10.      For the reasons recorded above, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, in the following manner:-

1. To raise fresh demand in respect of the electricity consumed by the complainant for the period from 30.6.2019 to 30.8.2019 on average bimonthly consumption of electricity on the said electricity connection during the previous six months as per instructions given in Clause B of the Sales Circular No.U-29 of 2011 issued on September 07^th, 2011 and clause 1(b) of Sales Circular No.U-61/2013 referred to above, without levying any delayed interest or penalty/surcharge etc.
2. To pay amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 21.11.2022.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President