Haryana

Panchkula

CC/13/2017

VIDYA KUMARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAKESH NUNIWAL

18 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                         

Consumer Complaint No.	:	13 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	23.01.2017
Date of Decision	:	18.09.2017

 

 

1. Vidya Kumari, aged 70 years, wife of Late Shri Diwan Chand.

 

2. Sukhjinder Singh, aged 47 years, son of Late Shri Diwan Chand.

 

     Both residents of House. No. 715, Sector 19, Panchkula

 

                                                                                      ….Complainants

Versus

1. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhwan, Sector 6, Panchkula

2. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through Sub-Divisional Officer (Operation), City Sub Division, Sector 15, Panchkula.

                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv., for the complainant.

                             Mr.Y.P.Rana, Adv., for the Ops.

 

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

1. The complainants herein are wife and son respectively of Late Mr. Diwan Chand who was holder of domestic electricity connection bearing Account No. 0112450000. Following the death of Mr. Diwan Chand, it is the complainants herein who are drawing electricity under that connection. In the month of September, 2015, the electricity meter aforementioned became defective. That fact was brought to the notice of the Ops vide application bearing Diary No. 2240 dated 21.10.2015. Nothing fruitful came out of the complainant. However, in a surprise checking it was found that as many as 8635 units of electricity were reported by the meter to have been consumed on one day i.e from 29.10.2015 to 30.10.2015.
2. While indicating the details of the electronic gazettes used at their house, the complainants averred that inspite of the above surprise checking, the Ops raised a demand of Rs. 97,821/- for the relevant period and kept on issuing exaggerated bills even thereafter inspite of protestation by the complainant about the defective electricity meter. Ultimately the Ops disconnected the electricity connection of the complainants herein.
3. The Ops averred that the electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected on November, 2016 when they were in default of the payment of a sum of Rs. 1,21,860/-. The plea is that the bill is reflective of actual user of electricity and the meter, on testing at the laboratory, was found to be in order.
4. Annexure C-A, alongwith documentation Annexure C-1 to C-17  was tendered into evidence on behalf of the complainants; while affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith documentation Annexure R-1 and R-2 were tendered into evidence on behalf of the Ops.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. There is a precise averment made by the complainant herein (in the course of Para-3 of the complaint) that a surprise check indicated that the meter showed consumption of as many as 8635 units on one day i.e. from 29.10.2015 to 30.10.2015. The corresponding para of the reply filed by the Ops does not controvert that averment, muchless by a specific type of denial. In the course of corresponding para, all that the Ops have averred is that the complainant did not pay the bill for the period March, 2015 to November, 2016, that they paid “a few bills” for the period ‘In between’ and that the Ops “had permanently disconnected the connection in November 2016 on defaulting amount of Rs. 1,21,860/-.”
7. The non denial of the relevant averment would justify our holding that the averment made by the complainants (that the meter showed consumption of 8635 units on the one day) would appear to have been validated. Even if all the electrical appliances were made functional throughout day and night, the consumption of 8635 units could not have come about on one day in any eventuality.
8. It is neither here nor there for the Ops to aver that a laboratory test had found the electricity meter in order. No date or timing of the test has been indicated nor is there any averment about which laboratory had conducted the test. There is not even an averment that the holding of test, at whichever place, had ever been notified to the complainants or their participation at the test ensured. By the very nature of things, it is not that a meter would be forwarded to the Lab just like that. It is mandated that the conducting of test would be notified to the meter holder and his participation invited and the test would be conducted at the laboratory of the electricity board at Dhulkot. If the consumer were not to opt for participation at the time of the test aforementioned, he cannot subsequently make a grouse of it. For want of an averment with regard to the particulars of the test, we cannot uphold the plea made by the Ops in the relevant behalf.
9. It is to state the obvious that a consumer in an identical eventuality would be expected to report the matter to the authorities at the electricity board. This is what precisely the complainants had done by lodging their application bearing Diary No. 2240 dated 21.10.2015. That averment in the course of para 2 of complaint has not been pointedly denied. It was open to the Ops to aver that the diary register does not contain the receipt of the averred application form the complainants. For want of a denial, we uphold the plea of the complainants that they did lodge a complaint which was not attended by the officials of electricity board.
10. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Ops ought to have billed the complainants on an average calculation based upon the consumption for the last six months or one year or the rule-related duration. That would have given the Ops a fair idea of the normal consumption by the complainants herein. By refraining from adopting that exercise, the Ops cannot apply for validation of excessive billing by them.
11. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we would allow the complaint and order that:-

1. The Ops shall issue a bill afresh based upon the average consumption of the meter during the six months preceding September, 2015 and afford seven days to the complainants to pay it up. If the complainants pay up within that period, the Ops shall restore the electricity connection forthwith. The amount, if any, paid by the complainants for the period under protest or otherwise, shall be adjusted against the amount payable by the complainants herein;
2. the Ops shall pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainants for the mental agony and harassment caused to them; and
3. the Ops shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainants as the cost of litigation.

12. The Ops shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to them comes about. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

18.09.2017  JAGMOHAN SING      ANITA KAPOOR       DHARAM PAL

                     MEMBER                  MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                                ANITA KAPOOR                                                                                               MEMBER