Haryana

StateCommission

A/1184/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHARAM PAL(SINCE DECEASED) - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

11 Jul 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    1184 of 2016

Date of Institution:      13.12.2016

Date of Decision :       11.07.2017

Sub Divisional Officer (OP), City Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Jhajjar, District Jhajjar.

Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

Dharampal (since deceased) s/o Sh. Sheoran Singh through LRs:

1.      Satbir Singh

2.      Virender Singh

Sons of late Shri Dharampal, Resident of Village Karmalgarh, District Jhajjar.

                                       Respondents-Complainants

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate on behalf of Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for appellants assisted by Shri Umed Singh, Sub Divisional Officer.

                             Shri Virender Rana, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        Sub Divisional Officer (OP), City Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) is in appeal against the order dated September, 06^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.27 of 2015.

2.                Dharampal-complainant, who died during pendency of this complaint on 22^nd April, 2015 and is being represented by his legal representatives - two sons namely Satbir Singh and Virender Singh, was provided an electricity connection bearing account No.1015410000, in his residential house situated at Village Kamalgarh, District Jhajjar. Later on his electricity connection number was changed as BF-109.  Due to some defect, the electricity meter of the above mentioned connection was changed on 04^th November, 2011. The complainant used to pay electricity bills regularly. Later on complainant felt that the electricity meter installed in his premises was very fast.

3.                The complainant requested in writing and deposited an amount of Rs.500/- as fee on 03^rd May, 2013 to get the electricity meter checked by installation of a check meter. The opposite party did not get the electricity meter checked. The complainant again on 12^th December, 2013 requested in writing by depositing of an amount of Rs.500/- to get the electricity meter checked. Ultimately, on 18^th December, 2013 a check meter was installed in the premises of the complainant regarding the period from 18^th December, 2013 up to 29^th December, 2013. During this period, difference in reading of the electricity meter already in existence and the check meter was of 73 units. In the meter already in existence, the reading was 473 units whereas in the check meter, reading of the electricity meter regarding consumption of electricity energy was 400 units. In this way, an electricity bill amounting to Rs.5,11,845/- was received by the complainant in the month of January, 2015.  Earlier, the opposite party did not provide MTO report.  However, after receiving MTO report, the complainant filed an application for correction of the electricity bill and for installation of the electricity meter on 01^st September, 2014. The opposite party did not accept the request of the complainant and continued issuance of the electricity bills on the basis of electricity consumption shown in the defective electricity meter.

4.                By filing the present complaint, the complainant has prayed that the opposite party be directed to withdraw the wrong electricity bill issued in the month of January, 2015; to install a new electricity meter in the premises of the complainant and to overhaul the account of the complainant up to date as per actual reading of new electricity meter.

5.                The opposite party in its written version has taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint; that the complaint is barred by limitation and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is denied that the electricity meter already in existence in the premises of the complainant was running fast or there was any defect in the electricity meter. It is also denied that the complainant used to pay electricity bills regularly. In fact, a bill amounting to Rs.4,47,256/- was issued in the month of May, 2015 and complainant made only part payment of the electricity bill only three times from the month of October, 2010 onwards. It is also admitted that earlier electricity meter was replaced on 04^th November, 2011. The opposite party has taken plea that in fact the check meter was not properly installed by the officials of the UHBVNL-Opposite Party. The check meter, as per requirement of rules, was not installed in the presence of M&T lab officials and was not got checked from M&T lab before installation. The electricity connection of the complainant is having 5.9 KWs load and average consumption of electricity on this meter in past remained from 2000 units to 4000 units. The opposite party has prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed with costs.

6.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated 06^th September, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, complaint filed by the complainant was allowed. Relief granted to the complainant is reproduced as under:-

“Therefore, it is directed that the respondent shall install a new electric meter/correct meter in the premises of the complainant replacing the old defective meter which is running approx. 18% fast, however, the meter cost for installation of new meter shall be borne by the complainant. It is further directed that the respondent shall overhaul the electric connection of complainant w.e.f. 4.11.2011 till issuance of last bill and charge from the complainant the previous consumption bills considering the meter of complainant (being defective) as 18% fast and accordingly, issue a fresh bill/statement without claiming any surcharge and adjusting the amounts already found deposited during the above period, to the complainant. However, it is made clear that the respondent shall refund the amount, if found, excessively deposited by the complainants during the above period along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of issuance of fresh bill/statement as ordered above till realization of final payment to the complainants and issue the further bills to the complainants as per the reading taken from the newly installed meter. The complainants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

7.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

8.                It is admitted fact that earlier electricity meter in the premises of the complainant was changed on 04^th November, 2011 by the opposite party. Shri Umed Singh, Sub Divisional Officer, UHBVNL, has given in writing (Annexure-B) at the time of arguments that the electricity meter which was earlier in existence, has been replaced on 28^th November, 2016. In this way, one of the grievances of the complainant for replacement of electricity meter has been redressed during pendency of the complaint. It is admitted fact that considering written request of the complainant, a check meter was installed in the premises of the complainant from 18^th December, 2013 up to 29^th December, 2013.  As per report, after installation of the check meter (Exhibit P-4), the electricity meter in existence was found defective as the electricity meter was running fast.  During the course of arguments, there was also no controversy that earlier electricity meter in existence was running fast. The reading of the electricity meter already in existence during the above mentioned period, was 473 units. Reading in the check meter was noted during the above mentioned period as 400 units. It means, the electricity meter already in existence was running 18% fast. In this way, there is a difference of 18% in the reading regarding consumption of electricity in the existing electricity meter and the check meter. In this way, the electricity meter in existence is fast by 18%. Version of the opposite party is that the check meter was not properly installed as per rules, as mentioned in earlier part of this order.

9.                It will be pertinent to mention here that although plea has been taken in the written submission that the check meter was not installed as per rules by officials of the Nigam but if there was any such intentional or un-intentional mistake on the part of the officials of the Nigam, the explanation of the officials concerned should have been called and check meter should have been installed again. No such procedure has been adopted by the opposite party. The opposite party cannot be allowed to take benefit of mistake of its officials. Although, on the basis of record on the file, findings cannot be given that the rules were not followed at the time of installation of the meter, even if it be presumed that the check meter was not installed by following the rules and procedure, in that eventuality also, it was the duty of the opposite party to redress the grievance of the complainant by installation of the check meter again immediately. Now due to faults of the opposite party, the electricity meter in existence remained installed for more than a period of three years from the date of installation of the check meter up to 28^th November, 2016.  Due to any such mistake on the part of the officials of the opposite party, the complainant cannot be allowed to suffer.

10.              Net result is that the electricity meter, which was 18% fast, remained installed in the premises of the complainant from 04^th November, 2013 up to 28^th November, 2016 and the complainant has been burdened to pay electricity bills 18% more than the actual consumption of electricity.  As the electricity meter was not changed despite time and again requests of the complainants, the complainant caused default in regular payment of electricity bills.  Due to this reason, a huge amount as surcharge has also been imposed upon the complainant which is not justified.

11.              Keeping in mind all these circumstances, it will be justified to give findings that the complainant is entitled for deduction of 18% of the total consumption in terms of units from 04^th November, 2011 up to 16^th November, 2016. The opposite party shall calculate total consumption of electricity as shown in the electricity meter in terms of units from 04^th November, 2011 up to 16^th November, 2016 and thereafter shall deduct 18% of the total consumption of electricity as shown in the electricity meter in terms of units. The complainant at the time of preparation of fresh electricity bill, shall mention consumption of electricity in terms of units from 04^th November, 2011 up to 16^th November, 2016 as 82% of the total consumption in terms of units as per reading in the electricity meter from time to time during the period from 04^th November, 2011 up to 16^th November, 2016. At the time of preparation of future fresh electricity bill, the opposite party shall deduct the total amount deposited by the complainant during the above mentioned period from 04^th November, 2011 to 16^th November, 2016 from the calculations of the total bill amount. The opposite party at the time of preparation of fresh electricity bill shall not add surcharge in the bill due to non-payment of electricity bills regarding the period from 4^th November, 2011 up to 16^th November, 2016. The surcharge amount mentioned in the electricity bills of the above mentioned period shall be deducted. It is not a case of excessive payments made by the complainant to the opposite party. So, there was no necessity of passing of an order for awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum in favour of the complainant by the learned District Forum. The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, dated 6^th September, 2016 stands modified accordingly. With this slight modification in the impugned order, as mentioned above, the findings of the learned District Court stands affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.

12.              The statutory amount of Rs.2750/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 11.07.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL