Haryana

StateCommission

A/869/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

GIAN CHAND - Opp.Party(s)

N.K.BAJAJ

13 Jul 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.869 of 2016

Date of the Institution: 26.09.2016

Date of Decision: 13.07.2017

 

1.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Chief Engineer.

2.      Executive Engineer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Power Colony, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula.

3.      Sub Divisional Officer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Power Colony, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula.

                                                                    .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Gian Chand Garg S/o Late Sh.Atma Ram Garg, H.NO.95-A, Sector-17, Panchkula.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for the appellants.

                    Mr.Gian Chand, Advocate for the respondent.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by complainant that bi-monthly (two) consumption of electricity by him was in between 2000 to 3000 units. Four to five years ago Opposite Parties (O.Ps.) sent bill of Rs.36,000/- .  Ultimately dispute in between them was settled by the State Commission to his satisfaction. In the month of October 2012 he received bill No.1830 dated 09.10.2012 for Rs.32795/- wherein charges were shown as per average basis due to defective meter. The old reading was shown as 99950/- and units consumed were shown as 5036/- on the average basis, whereas consumption shown in the bills issued from the month of December 2011 to August 2012 was maximum to the extent of 3217. New meter installed on 25.10.2012 started showing  consumption of more units.  In bill dated 07.12.2012 also the consumption was shown as 2647 units on the basis of average consumption and old meter reading was shown as 99950.  After installation of new meter on 25.10.2012 bill No.1841 dated 09.02.2013 was issued wherein old reading was shown as 1015 and new reading was shown as 5027 units showing consumption of 4012 units, which was not correct because in previous bills consumption was never more than 2600 units. In this way the meter was running fast.  He brought this fact to the notice of SDO/concerned persons, but, no action was taken. In bill No.1842 dated 09.04.2013 consumption of 2750 units was shown which was also excessive because air conditioners were not used during that period.  He brought this fact to the notice of O.P.Nos.2 and 3 and Ombudsman about deficiency in service and cheating, but, he was forced to pay Rs.50,000/- upto the month of August 2013. Another bill was issued for the period 10.08.2013 to 10.10.2013 showing consumption of 6097 units. Last bill was issued for the period 08.08.2013 to 08.10.2013 showing consumption of 5175 units. After his complaint a check meter was installed on 16.09.2013 which was removed on 20.09.2013 because proper wires were not used  and they were burnt. Due to burning of wires, reading of check meter jumped by 100 units.  As per his request an other check meter were installed on 24.09.2013 which was removed on 14.10.2013 showing the consumption of 1257 units within 20 days whereas old meter was showing consumption of 1270 units during this period.  In this way difference was of 13 units in 20 days. Check meter should have been got tested from  Government Laboratory at Ambala before installation which was not done. The authorities failed to check functioning of meter from technical expert. So O.ps. be directed to issue correct bills by taking last two years average ( 2011 and 2012) for the period from 10.10.2012 till meter was tested by Ambala laboratory was installed. They be also directed to pay compensation as prayed.

2.      In reply it was alleged by O.Ps. that this connection was an industrial (medium) connection having account No.P1010615A and was commercial one.  Bill of complainant was issued according to minimum monthly charges (MMC) which was not according to actual units consumed by him and that is why initially amount was less than subsequent bills issued on the basis of actual consumption of units. MMC was reflected in the previous bills. When working of old meter was disputed the same was got checked on 02.11.2012 by installing  acu check meter and no fault was found.  Complainant was told that if he was not satisfied with inspection by Acu check meter he could get his meter checked from M&T lab at Ambala in his presence, but, he never responded. When the meter remained defective, billing was done on the average basis subject to overhauling after installation of new meter and consumption shown by the same. Account of complainant of disputed period was overhauled on the basis of average consumption for the next six months of installation. His averments about air conditioner etc. could not be admitted because due to humidity their use would be on higher side. New meter was installed after getting the same checked from the lab. The meter was shown defective in bill dated 07.12.2012 because the status of meter could not be updated after replacement during billing circle. His averments about excess billing were altogether wrong.  Due to installation of check meter there was no jump in the reading. His averments about this fact were altogether wrong. They were ready to get the meter of complainant checked from the lab if he was ready to bear the expenses in case no abnormality was found. He was never forced to pay Rs.50,000/-.  Objections about maintainability of complaint, locus standi, jurisdiction, estopple, concealment of true facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 28.03.2016 and directed as under:-

“a)     The OPs are not entitled to charge any amount of surcharge (surcharge amount payable after due date) on the disputed bill No.1830 dated 09.10.2012 charged and in subsequent bills till the date of this order;

b)      OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency  of services as also the mental agony and harassment caused to him; and.

c)      OPs shall further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as the cost of litigation.”

4.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom the opposite parties have preferred this appeal

5.                Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.               Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that complainant submitted before District Forum that if the report of M&T lab at Ambala will be in favour of department then he will deposit the entire amount. As per report dated 07.09.2015 attached with letter dated 08.09.2015 it is clear that meter was OK so complainant cannot allege that he is not liable to pay any amount. Learned District forum fell in error while directing the department not to recover surcharge and pay compensation as mentioned therein.  Rather complainant should have been penalized for filing false application.  Report cannot be made by M&T lab in the beginning because instrument was not working properly as mentioned in letter dated 20.03.2015, so there was no deficiency in service on their part.

7.               On the other hand respondent-complainant vehemently argued that he was always willing and ready to pay the amount qua electricity used by him.  As per details given in complaint, consumption during summer period was  less, than shown by appellants in the subsequent months. It shows that meter was not working properly. He requested for testing his meter on 13.11.2014 but O.Ps. delayed it under one pretext or the other. So they are not entitled to recover surcharge and appeal is not maintainable and the same be dismissed.

8.               However there is no dispute that complainant moved an application on 13.11.2014 to get his meter checked from M&T lab Dhulkot, Ambala which was allowed by learned District forum on 08.12.2014. When meter was sent to M&T lab Dhulkot it was reported that concerned instrument was out of order and complainant can get his meter checked from Yamuna Nagar, but, he was not ready to get the same checked from that place.  Ultimately the meter was checked in the month of September 2015 when the instrument was received.  It cannot be expected from department to get the machine repaired  or purchase new machine there and then.  Proper procedure is followed  and time is consumed to get all the things done.  From the perusal of letter, sent by XEN M&T Division Ambala, it is clear that they were contacting the authorities to get the machine corrected.

9.               Further complainant cannot be held liable to pay surcharge as opined by learned District forum because matter was kept hanging by O.Ps. for fairly a long time.  When complainant requested on 13.11.2014 to sent his meter for testing O.Ps. could have given consent there and then, but, adjournment was requested time and again for filing reply of the same.  Ultimately the same was tested after one  year.  Due to this reason he is not liable to pay surcharge. The sword kept hanging on complainant since the filing of complaint till the report was submitted, so he was rightly granted compensation for mental agony etc.

9.               As a sequel to above discussion impugned order cannot be set aside. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

10.              The statutory amount of Rs.12500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and verification.

 

July 13th, 2017

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

s.k