Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President
1. A complaint filed by Sh. Pawan Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”) under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) against business manager of NDPL (hereinafter referred to as “OP”). The complainant is seeking the direction to OP to revise the bill without LPSC, not to disconnect the electricity of supply and to pay the compensation of 50,000/- for causing mental pain and agony and harassment.
2. In brief the facts are that the complainant is having electricity connection bearing no. K.No. 4500139567P. It is stated that a false and fabricated bill of Rs. 1,43,450/- was sent and complainant paid Rs. 1.80/- on 06.04.2004 before installation of new meter and therein compliance of old meter. It is further stated that old meter was removed on 08.03.2005 and there was no dues and new meter was also installed on the even date. The complainant paid Rs. 280/- on 07.06.2005 that was the first bill of new meter. It is further stated that thereafter OP did not sent any bill and complaint was made on 01.08.2006 vide receipt no. 92. Thereafter, a bill of Rs. 83,650/- in the month of June, 2006.
3. It is stated that at the house and one shop that is in commercial building is there also a commercial connection in the name of Ms. Usha Rani K.No. 36305041006A was removed on 2007. It is stated that an application made on 28.12.2006 vide receipt no. 060729726 for correction of the bill. Another application made at Keshav Puram vide receipt no. 73 dated 21.08.2007 and a complaint also made in this regard. On 17.08.2007 again complaint was made at Keshav Puram office vide receipt no. 23 and copy also sent to CEO, Kingsway Camp on 27.09.2007.
4. It is stated that Mr. Pankaj Kumar came at the house of the complainant for load checking on 27.09.2007 and told that total consumption is only of 211W and a report was given on that vary date and he assured to the complainant that consumption of 211W has been registered in the computer. It is further stated that prior to 17.08.2007 load was checked by Sh. Nagpal but report was not given. Thereafter, complainant meet to Mr. Nagpal who sent some electrician from NDPL to check the load so the inspection was done at once and complainant was in NDPL office but no report was given. The complainant paid Rs. 831 of current bill of July, 2007. Thereafter, OP did not accept the current bill.
5. It is stated that on 19.10.2007 electrician from OP came to remove the meter and request was made not to remove the meter. Thereafter an application given to CEO Sh. T.D. Negi on 20.10.2007 and an application was also given to G.M. Mr. Ajay Narula on 20.10.2007 at Keshavpuram vide receipt no. 23 hence, this complaint filed.
6. Written statement filed by OP. It is stated that connection no. 45100139567 sent to Mr. Pawan Kumar complainant and installed at 3 Kewal Park extension for domestic purpose having sanctioned load of 0.25 KW. It is stated that each and every payment made by complainant had not adjusted in the account as per statement of account. It is stated that meter installed against the above connection remained faulty/defective for the period from 24.07.2004 to 09.03.2005 and replaced on 09.03.2005 with a new meter. Thereafter, the assessment was made on the basis of base period-II, post-defective from 09.03.2005 to 02.05.2006 as per DERC guidelines which is quite justified and legal. It is stated that after replacement of the meter on 09.03.2005 bill revised by charging the actual consumption units up to 09.05.2005, the net assessment debit of Rs. 41,351.49/- was debited and raised in the bill. Therefore, the demand raised by OP for faulty/defective meter is quite justified and as per guidelines issued by DERC.
7. It is stated that consumer is liable to pay total outstanding demand including assessment demand. It is further stated that bill dated August, 2007 was amount to Rs. 1,43,455/- including unpaid arrears of Rs. 1,20,606/- with proportionate LPSC and current demand of Rs.928/- of the month. It is stated that complainant is defaulter in making payment of the regular bills since June, 2005 as per statement of account and proportionate LPSC as per tariff rule imposed. It is further stated that in the office of OP details of assessment explained to complainant whenever he visited the office. It is stated that complainant is mentioning about the letter dated 01.08.2006 regarding the non receipt of bills but silent about the non-payments of bill since May, 2005 and same transpires that after thought of the complainant to avoid the legitimate dues. Moreover, complainant has made payment of Rs. 25,000/- against the bill dated September, 2006 vide cheque which was dishonored on presentation and same amount carry forward in the subsequent bill as per rule.
8. It is stated that on the request of complainant accuracy of meter was checked and result was found within permissible limits i.e. 1.5%. It is further stated that meter was again checked on 13.11.2007 and result was again found within permissible limit i.e. 0.71% and copy of accuracy check is filed on record. The bill of the complainant is correct and as per actual consumption. It is stated that all the allegations made against OP are wrong and false therefore denied. It is stated that complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP and denied all the allegations. It is stated that the impugned bill is totally illegal false wrong baseless. Therefore, complainant is not liable to pay and retreated the contents of the complaint.
10. The complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit and retreated contents of his complaint. OP filed evidence by way of affidavit by Sh. Om Prakash Arora Commercial Manager. The OP relied on statement of account annexure-A and copy of accuracy check report annexure-B.
11. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as respondent.
12. We have heard the complainant in person and Sh. Harish Purohit along with Sh. Ajay Joshi AR for OP perused the record.
13. The complainant put up a case that his old meter was removed in 2005 and new meter was installed on the same date. He has another commercial connection in the name of Smt. Usha Rani having. K. No. 363050068 which was removed in the year 2007. However, he has not mentioned a single fact why his old meter was removed on 08.03.2009. According to OP the meter of complainant remained faulty/defective for the period 24.07.2004 to 2005 and replaced on 09.03.2005 with new meter. The OP according to DERC guidelines to assess the defective period consumption charges of the base period from 09.03.2005 to 02.05.2006 of the new meter. Accordingly net assessment was made of Rs. 41351.49/- and after all adjustments as per bill dated August, 2007 the due amount was 143445 including unpaid arrear of Rs. 120606/- with proportionate LPSC and current demand of Rs. 928/-. According to OP complainant made a payment of Rs. 25,000/- against the bill dated September, 2006 which was dishonored. The specific allegation made against the complainant that as per statement of account complainant failed to make payment of bill of May, 2005 that after installation of new meter. The documents filed by OP with regard to accuracy check report dated 08.11.2007 and meter testing dated 13.11.2007 found that new meter has been functioning absolutely perfect. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of proceedings OP filed a detailed report of the dues against the complainant and also the pattern of consumption of complainant from the year 2000 to 2007.
14. A detailed report filed by OP as per directions of the Commission which shows that since January, 2000 to 2003 there was no consumption recorded and average bill was raised. The reading of the electric meter started from March, 2004 and that meter was found to be faulty and changed on 08.03.2005. Since 09.03.2005 the regular reading taken. However, in September, 2005 the reading of 2568, 6565, January 3390 and March,3610,May 2006 2371 there after the readings are within the range of 300 till 23.10.2007. The meter testing report filed on record dated 13.11.2007 shows that meter has been functioning properly.
15. According to the statement of account filed by OP since 10.01.2003 to 08.03.2011 shows that whatever regular consumption bill paid by complainant are shows the adjusted against the dues. The statement also reflected that cheque of Rs. 25,000/- dishonored in September,2006. Therefore, as per record the unpaid amount of Rs.143455/- as per demand in the bill of August, 2007 includes the defective period charges on 41351/- of unpaid bill and LPSC.
16. On the basis of above observations and discussion we do not found any justification for giving direction for revise the bill where complainant himself defaulted making regular consumption bills and a cheque of Rs. 25,000/- was dishonored. The complainant remained silent with regard to the fact with regard to regular consumption has been recorded and regularly and correctly as per the new meter installed and the accuracy report and meter testing report established without new meter installed on 08.03.2005 has been perfectly functioning perfectly. Hence, the statutory demand against the regular consumption of complainant and assessment of defective meter readings are legal, justified and payable.
17. On the basis of above observation and discussion the present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
File be consigned to record room.
- Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.
Announced in open Commission on 21.07.2023.
SANJAY KUMAR NIPUR CHANDNA RAJESH
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
