Haryana

Karnal

CC/433/2021

Subhash Chander - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vineet Kumar

27 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 433 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.25.08.2021

                                                        Date of Decision: 27.02.2023

 

Subhash Chander son of Shri Isham Singh son of Sandhu Ram, resident of Budhanpur Abad District Karnal now resident of house no.17 Gali no.5, New Bahadur Singh Colony, Karnal, age 44 years (Aadhar card no.785430107382).

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVN, Sub Division, Jundla District Karnal.

2.     XEN, UHBVN, Sector-12, District Karnal.

                                                                       …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Vineet Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Surya Partap, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is having electricity meter/connection no.L34JJ271064N of DS category for the purpose of domestic use which stands in the name of the grandfather of the complainant. Since the day when the meter was got installed, the OPs sent the electricity bill on average basis, accordingly complainant is depositing the due charges with the OP no.1 regularly. It is further averred that the official of the OPs used to get recorded the different readings of the said meter of the complainant, accordingly OPs used to sent the bill on different average basis. It is averred that the house in which the electricity connection is installed remained closed. In the month of November 2020, complainant received a bill of Rs.2732/- of 100 units which was wrong but officials of OPs pressurized the complainant to deposit the said amount, so under compelling circumstances, the complainant deposited the same under protest. Thereafter, complainant moved an application on 28.12.2020 to OPs to install check-meter which was installed on 05.02.2021 upto 08.02.2021 meantime the consumption of units was only 3 units but in the faulty meter the reading shown 55 units which is described and calculated by the OPs. In December 2020, the complainant received bill of Rs.4436/- of 728 units, in January 2021, complainant received bill of Rs.26833/- of 2950 units, February 2021, the complainant received bill of Rs.84686/- of 7586 units. Thereafter, OPs removed said meter and installed new meter in beginning of March, 2021. In March, 2021 complainant received bill of Rs.86243/- of 94 units, April 2021 the complainant received bill of Rs.88112/- of 13 units, May 2021 the complainant received bill of Rs.89750/- of 39 units, June 2021, complainant received bill of Rs.89978/- of 21 units, July 2021 the complainant received bill of Rs.91575/- of 0 units. However, the complainant many times requested to the OPs to get corrected the bill as well as electricity meter/reading, if any fault is there but it is of no avail. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant is consumer of OP and having a connection no.L34JJ271064N of DS category for the use of domestic purpose. The complainant had received the bill for the month of November, 2020 for consuming 100 units for an amount of Rs.2732/- which was true and correct. Again the complainant had received the bill for the month of January, 2021 according to the consumption of 2950 units for an amount of Rs.26,833/-. It is further pleaded that OP no.1 has replaced the old meter into a new electronic meter on the application of the complainant in February, 2021 and the reading of old meter was taken into account while sending the bill, as such the bill for the February 2021 was sent to the complainant for an amount of Rs.84,686/-. The alleged faulty meter was sent to the laboratory for the checking and it was found that the meter was ok and within the limits. Lateron, the amount of Rs.51,351/- on account of wrong reading was adjusted in the bill for the month of August, 2021. The complainant has not paid the bill after the month of November, 2020 and the total outstanding amount towards the complainant is 42,425/-. So the complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention for not paying the outstanding amount. 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 his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copies of electricity bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C10, copy of application dated 28.12.2020 for meter check and correct in bill Ex.C11, copy of receipt dated 28.02.2020 amount of Rs.200/- paid for check meter Ex.C12, copy of receipt dated 08.02.2021 amount charged by UHBVNL for new meter Ex.C13, copy of record slip of old meter which is removed by UHBVNL and also having unit difference made by UHBVNL Ex.Mark-C14, copy of difference in check meter reading or old existing meter reading Mark-C15 and closed the evidence on 14.01.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Karambir, AFM Ex.RW1/A, copy of meter inspection report dated 17.03.2021 Ex.R1, copy of detail of account no.JJ27/1064N Ex.R2, copy of sundry report Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 21.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is having electricity connection. Since the day of installation of meter, the OPs sent the electricity bill on average basis and complainant paid the same regularly. In the month of November 2020, complainant received a bill of Rs.2732/- of 100 units which was wrong, the complainant deposited the same under protest. In December 2020, the complainant again received bill of Rs.4436/- of 728 units, in January 2021, complainant received bill of Rs.26833/- of 2950 units, February 2021, the complainant received bill of Rs.84686/- of 7586 units. In March, 2021 complainant received bill of Rs.86243/- of 94 units, April 2021 the complainant received bill of Rs.88112/- of 13 units, May 2021 the complainant received bill of Rs.89750/- of 39 units, June 2021, complainant received bill of Rs.89978/- of 21 units, July 2021 the complainant received bill of Rs.91575/- of 0 units. The complainant many times requested 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 lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant is consumer of OP and having a connection DS category. The bills were sent to the complainant as per actual consumption charges. Again a bill was sent to the complainant for the month of January, 2021 according to the consumption of 2950 units for an amount of Rs.26,833/-. OP no.1 has replaced the old meter with a new electronic meter on the application of the complainant in February, 2021 and the reading of old meter was taken into account while sending the bill, as such the bill for the February 2021 was sent to the complainant for an amount of Rs.84,686/-. The alleged faulty meter was sent to the laboratory for the checking and it was found that the meter was ok and within the limits. Lateron, the amount of Rs.51,351/- on account of wrong reading was adjusted in the bill for the month of August, 2021. The complainant has not paid the bill after the month of November, 2020 and the total outstanding amount towards the complainant is 42,425/- and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

11.           OP no.1 has replaced the old meter with new electronic meter on the application of complainant  in the February, 2021 and reading of the old meter was taken into account while sending  the bill for the month of February, 2021 for an amount of Rs.84,686/-.

13.           Old meter removed from the site and sent to the Laboratory for the checking and it was found that the meter was ‘ok’ and within the ‘limit’. An amount of Rs.51351/- on account of wrong reading has been adjusted in the bill for the month of August, 2021 by the OPs.

14.           On the complaint of the complainant, OPs installed a check meter in the premises of the complainant and as per reading of both meters i.e. check meter and old meter, report Mark-C15 was prepared and as per said report,  there is a huge difference with regard to reading in both meters, hence it has been proved from the said testing report that old meter was defected one and the plea taken by the OPs that the said meter while checking in the laboratory was found ok is not justified. Moreover, checking/inspection report Ex.R1, also prepared in the absence of the complainant, which is also not admissible in the eyes of law. Furthermore, OPs have adjusted an amount of Rs. Rs.51,351/-  on account of wrong reading. Thus, it has been proved that old meter was defective one. Thus, the act of the issuing the wrong bill on the basis of defective meter amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

15.           Due to electricity bills issued on the wrong reading, the complainant has not paid the electricity bills after November, 2020 and continuously using the electricity consumption and has been enjoying facility of electricity. Thus, the complainant is also liable to pay the electricity bills as per actual consumption.

16.           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 issued the electricity bills according to the average of meter-reading of succeeding six months from the disputed period i.e. after November, 2020 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. On issuing fresh bills, complainant is also bound to clear the same. 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:27.02.2023                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

  Member                   Member