BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.102 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 08.04.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:21.01.2020.

Anurag Gupta, Advocate, son of Sh. Ravi Parkash Gupta, Advocate, resident of House No.103/11, Professor Colony, Dhand Road, Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

UHBVN Ltd., Kaithal through S.D.O. (OP-II).

….Respondent.

Before:      Sh. D.N.Arora, President.

                Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

                Smt. Suman Rana, Member.

Present:     Complainant in person.   

                Sh. Rahul Gupta, Advocate for the OP.

ORDER

D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant is user of 3-phase domestic electricity connection bearing account No.7805100000 (old account No.KA-22/2675) having 8 K.W. sanctioned load as his father Sh. Ravi Parkash Gupta has already died.  The complainant has challenged the bill bearing No.135737 dt. 27.03.2019 amounting to Rs.57,939/-, wherein the consumed units have been shown as 7495 units for two months i.e. since 04.01.2019 till 27.03.2019.  The said bill is wrong and illegal.  It is further alleged that the complainant represented his inability to pay such huge and excessive amount claimed by the Op but the Op threatened the complainant to disconnect his electricity connection and under the threat of the Op, the complainant had to deposit half amount of the impugned bill i.e. Rs.29,000/- by way of cheque No.873811 dt. 05.04.2019.  It is further alleged that the Op is  still threatening to recover the balance half amount of impugned amount under the threat of disconnection of electricity connection.  The Op is liable to refund the said amount after deducting the amount according to actual consumption of electricity.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Op and prayed for acceptance of complaint.  Hence, this complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the Op appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the Op issued bill to the complainant dt. 27.03.2019 and due date is 08.04.2019 of consumption of units 7495 for the sum of Rs.57,939/- (for the period of 04.01.2019 to 27.03.2019 i.e. 82 days) but the complainant dishonestly moved an application to S.D.O. OP SD No.2 regarding replacement of faulty and burnt meter on 09.04.2019 which is dt. 07.04.2919 and before one day i.e. on 08.04.2019 filed this complaint before this Forum for saving himself to pay the amount/electricity bill charges.  The J.E. received the above-said application on 09.04.2019 and on the bottom of application, submitted his report.  At the time of checking, the meter load found 3.82 K.W. and as per report/snapshot of meter-reader bill distributor (MRBD) employee, the meter of complainant is in O.K. condition.  The bill for the period 04.01.2019 to 27.03.2019 was duly sent to the complainant for the reading as:  Old reading=10149 units and new reading=17649 units.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C10 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.           On the other hand, the Op tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R19 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant has received a bill dt. 27.03.2019 for the period 04.01.2019 to 27.03.2019 for the sum of Rs.57,939/-, wherein the due date was shown as 08.04.2019 and consumption is shown as 7495 units as per Annexure-R8.  The grievance of the complainant is that when he received the above-said bill, he moved an application on 07.04.2019 as per Annexure-R1 mentioning therein that the bill is excessive and he wants to get replace the faulty meter that is burnt meter.  The Op has checked the meter in question on 09.04.2019 and found that the meter is O.K. but the Op has replaced the meter vide M.C.O. No.7805100501 dt. 16.04.2019 and effected on 20.04.2019 as per Annexure-R2 and after installing the new meter, the complainant received the less consumption bill.  We have perused the Annexure-R7, bill pertaining to the period 27.03.2019 to 20.04.2019, the consumption shown is 526 units and after 20.04.2019, the consumption shown for the period 20.04.2019 to 19.05.2019, the consumption shown is 384 units.  Ld. Counsel for the Op contended that when the meter was checked, the meter was found O.K. and further contended that the bill for the period 04.01.2019 to 27.03.2019 as per Annexure-R8 which has been challenged by the complainant, the complainant has not mentioned the application dt. 07.04.2019 Annexure-R1 moved by him to the department towards the burnt meter and the consumption shown in the bill is correct but it is very surprising that when the meter in question was O.K., then why the Op has replaced the meter.  It is basic principle of the Nigam when they changed the meter, they are duty bound to send the meter in question in M & T lab for testing the accuracy of the meter as per sales circular of the Nigam, instruction No.5.6 (Clause-1) Testing of Defective Meter, which is mentioned as under:-

        “5.6.1        The Licensee shall have the right to test any meter and related equipment if there is reasonable doubt about accuracy of the meter.  The consumer shall provide the licensee necessary assistance in conduct of the test.  The licensee may check the meter in-situ by putting a check meter in series or otherwise.  If required, the licensee may temporarily replace the meter and take it away for testing.”

        But there is no record on the file whether they have sent the old meter to the lab for correctness of the meter or whether it was faulty or burnt.  We are of the view that the Ops have not followed their own instructions as per Nigam.  In view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice will be met if the account of complainant be overhauled on the basis of the average of the new meter for six months.  Hence, the bill in question dt. 27.03.2019 for the period 04.01.2019 to 27.03.2019 Anneuxre-R8 for the consumption of 7495 units is hereby quashed.

7.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Op to overhaul the account of the complainant for the period 04.01.2019 to 27.03.2019 i.e. impugned bill dt. 27.03.2019 on the basis of the average of succeeding six months from the date of M.C.O. i.e. 20.04.2019.  It is made clear that if the complainant has deposited the amount in lieu of the disputed bill or any excessive amount deposited in view of interim order dt. 08.04.2019 of this Forum, then the same be adjusted in the future bills of complainant.  No order as to costs.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this orders.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

Announced in open court:

Dt.:21.01.2020.

                                                                        (D.N.Arora)

                                                                        President.

(Suman Rana),           (Rajbir Singh)         

Member                             Member.