Haryana

Karnal

CC/237/2020

Kulvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer (OP), UHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

J.P. Singh

18 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 237 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.07.07.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:18.09.2023

 

Kulvidner Singh aged about 39 years son of Shri Satnam Singh, resident of village Munak, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal. Aadhar no.6218 0207 7974.

                                            …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Sub Divisional Officer (OP),  UHBVN, Munak, District Karnal
2. XEN, UHBVN, Sector-12, District Karnal.

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

       

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

                   

Argued by: Shri J.B. Singh, counsel for complainant

                   Shri B.P. Singh, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

 

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant got installed new electricity meter/connection no.L33 UD13 1598 W (6/1) of 2KW of D.S. category at his house. The house of the complainant consists two rooms which having 4 bulbs of 9 watt each, one TV. Complainant is a handicapped person. Since the day of installation of meter, the OPs used to sent the bill on average basis accordingly, complainant is depositing the due charges regularly. The official of the OPs used to get the different readings of said meter/connection of the complainant, accordingly OPs used to sent the bill on different average basis. Now OPs have sent a huge amount bill of Rs.67760/- Rs.56,650/- for the month of April, 2020 and June, 2020 respectively. However, the complainant moved many applications to the OPs to get corrected the bill as well as electricity meter/reading, if any fault is there but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and also threatened him, if he fails to deposit the said amount, its connection will be disconnected. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that no extra or excessive amount is being charged from the complainant. Moreover, complainant never remained regular in making payment of the electricity charges to the OPs. It is denied that from the day of installation of meter, the bills are being sent on average basis. Uptil 10/2017, the bills were being sent as per the actual consumption of the electricity but thereafter the uptil 2/2020 the bills were sent on average basis because as and when the meter reader visited the house of complainant, same was found locked. But complainant has not paid the said average bills regularly and he from 10/2017 to 2/2020 paid Rs.14,000/- by way of three installments. In the month of April, 2020, the meter reading of the premises of complainant came to notice of the OP as 11515 whereas old reading was 3221 and after deducting the said reading, the consumable reading was 8294 units. Hence, the bill of said reading was sent to the complainant. It is further pleaded that prior to this the average bills were sent for 1476 units and amount of that units was amount into 11413 was refunded to him. Hence the bill in question sent to the complainant is quite legal and valid and he is liable to pay the same. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, bills payment receipts Ex.C1 to Ex.C16, copy of aadhar card Ex.C17, copy of applications 03.07.2020 and 19.12.2019  by complainant to OP regarding request of correction of electricity bill Ex.C18 and Ex.C19, electricity bills Ex.C20 and Ex.C21, payment receipt Ex.C22, electricity bills Ex.C23 to Ex.C30, payment receipt Ex.C31 and closed he evidence on 17.11.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Nitin Kero Ex.OP1/A, copy of ledger of account no.UD13/1598 Ex.OP1, copy of ledger detail Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 21.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is consumer of OPs and paying the electricity consumption charges regularly and nothing was due against the complainant. Complainant received electricity bill for month of April, 2020 and June, 2020 to the tune of Rs.67,760/- and Rs.56,650/- respectively, which were very huge amount. After receiving the said bills complainant visited the office of OPs to get correct the said bills but the same has not been corrected after repeated requests. He further argued that complainant is ready to pay the bill as per actual consumption and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel of OPs while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued uptil 10/2017, the bills were being  sent to complainant  as per the actual consumption but thereafter the uptil 2/2020 the bills were sent on average basis because as and when the meter reader visited the house of complainant, same was found locked. He further argued that complainant has not paid the said average bills regularly and from 10/2017 to 2/2020, he paid Rs.14,000/- only by way of three installments. In the month of April, 2020, the meter reading of the premises of complainant came to notice of the OPs as 11515 whereas old reading was 3221 and after deducting the said reading, the consumable reading was 8294 units. Thus, the bill sent to complainant as per actual consumption and no excess or extra amount is being charged from the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           The complainant is using the electricity connection no.L33 UD13 1598 W (6/1) of 2 KW. The complainant has challenged the bill of April, 2020 to the tune of Rs.67,760/- on the ground that he has paid the electricity charges regularly as per actual consumption and nothing is due against him.

11.           As per the version of the OPs, the bill sent to complainant as per actual consumption and no excess or extra amount is being charged from the complainant

12.           Admittedly, prior to October, 2017, the electricity bills were issued to the complainant as per the actual consumption and the same were paid by the complainant without any delay.

13.           After that, the OPs have alleged that the disputed bill amount is from October, 2017 to February, 2020 and for the said period, the electricity bills were sent to the complainant on the average basis because as and when the meter reader visited the house of the complainant, same was found locked. It is believable that the premises of complainant remained closed for so long period. Hence, it appears that made a concocted story in this regard.

14.           OPs have assessed the disputed amount on the basis of copy of ledger of account Ex.OP1 and copy of detail of ledger Ex.OP2. The said documents are photocopies and do not bear the signature of the issuing person and stamp of the OPs. Thus, the abovesaid documents are not value in the eyes of law. It appears that the said bills issued by the OPs on the basis of presumption and assumption and not as per the actual consumption. Thus the demand of the OPs in the disputed bill amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 15.          Thus, in view of the above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to overhaul the account of complainant and  to issue the electricity bills according to the average of meter-reading of succeeding six months from the disputed period by receiving the consumption charges without imposing any surcharge and penalty. OPs  are also directed to issue the subsequent electricity bills as per the actual consumption and complainant is also bound to clear the same. Complainant has already paid Rs.14,000/- from 10/2017 to 2/2020. So, the said amount be adjusted in the subsequent bills. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced

Dated:18.09.2023                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

  Member                   Member