BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.191 of 2018.
Date of institution: 24.07.2018.
Date of decision:18.07.2019.
Dinesh Tyagi son of Sh. Satya Vir Tyagi, Resident of 458/21, Opp. Padma City Mall, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Sub Divisional Officer “OP” Sub Division, X-42 City Kaithal-II, UHBVN, Kaithal.
- UHBVN Ltd. Shakti Bhavan, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana through it’s Secretary/Managing Director.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Rahul Gupta, Advocate for the OPs.
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 consumer of Ops vide electricity connection bearing account No.2211300000 and he has been paying the bills regularly. It is alleged that the Ops did not issue the bills, did not take readings and started issuing wrong bills and hence, on 30.03.2018 a consumer complaint was filed by the complainant against the Ops. It is alleged that after filing of complaint on 30.03.2018, the bill dt. 15.06.2018 was issued for the period 05.05.2018 to 08.06.2018 (36 days), wherein old units shown as 71452 and billed units shown as 957 on pro rata basis and premises shown falsely locked. It is further alleged that on 06.06.2018 units consumed were 072278 and that meter was taken by the Ops but even than the bill issued for 72409 units i.e. 131 units over and above the actual consumed units @ Rs.7.10 plus enhanced surcharges in the bill dt. 15.06.2018. The contention of Ops that the premises found locked is false and malafide act because premises never remained locked. The meter was changed on 06.06.2018 and that meter was in the custody of Ops for reading purpose. The complainant sent e-mail dt. 26.06.2018 to the Ops and requested the Ops to change the meter from inside the premises to outside the premises and for taking readings and issuing the bills. The complainant sent many complaints to the Ops for issuing correct bill but the Ops did not redress the grievance of complainant. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the meter of premises of complainant was inside in the premises which has now been shifted outside the premises; that on receiving the complaint of complainant, the exact existing reading was taken and issued the bill dt. 15.06.2018 (36 days). The above-said bill dt. 15.06.2018 was cancelled by the Nigam and a fresh revised bill was issued on 25.06.2018 for the period from 03.05.2018 to 06.06.2018 (34 days) of consumption of units 826 of Rs.5129/-. The complainant has not deposited the said revised bill; that the bills of the month of 06.06.2018 to 09.08.2018 were duly sent to the complainant for the reading as: old reading=72278 units, new reading=1764 units but in the above-said bill wrongly mentioned due to mistake of the MRBD Pvt. Company, the correct reading was not taken because the M.C.O. dt. 06.06.2018 was not effected in the above-said bills. The M.C.O. was effected on 08.06.2018. Now the Nigam has issued a current bill of Rs.18,482/- for consumption of 2786 units in which there is no arrear and no amount of sundry charges. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. 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 Ex.C1 to Ex.C5, Mark-C1 to Mark-C17 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R14 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. From the pleadings, evidence of the case and on appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, the main dispute in this case is that the Ops have issued the bill Annexure R6 pertaining to the period 07.06.2018 to 08.06.2018 and similarly 08.06.2018 to 04.10.2018 and lastly mentioned the billing 08.06.2018 to 04.10.2018 for the period of 119 days. Meaning thereby they have sent the consolidated bill for the period mentioned above shown in the Annexure R6. The grievance of the complainant is that if the Ops issued the bill by way of bifurcating the monthly billing cycle, then the tariff will remain less but the Ops have sent the consolidated bill for the period of 119 days and the consumption has been shown of 2855 units and they have issued the bill and levied the tariff 1 unit to 595 units 4.50 paise per unit and after 595 units, they have levied the tariff of 397 units 5.25 paise per unit, 991 units 6.30 paise and 802 units 7.10 paise. To resolve this controversy, we have summoned the tariff circular, schedule of tariff for supply of energy, sales circular No.U-27/2017. It is mentioned in the said sales circular that if total consumption is more than 100 units/month and upto 800 units/month, the following tariff is mentioned in the said circular as under:-
0-150 | 450/kwh | Nil | Rs.125 upto 2 KW and Rs.75 above 2 KW |
151-200 | 525/kwh | Nil | |
251-500 | 630/kwh | Nil | |
501-800 | 710/kwh | Nil | |
The Charted Accountant was directed to come present in this Forum and he was directed to give the calculation how the Ops have calculated the electricity bill of 4 months on what tariff basis has been levied. It is admitted fact that the complainant has consumed 2786 units in 119 days. Now-a-days, the Ops are issuing the bills to the customers on bio-monthly basis. The C.A. has bifurcated the units and divided into two parts as per bill Annexure R6. One part 1 day to 60 days, the units consumed 1764 and the second part for further 59 days, units shown as 1022. The C.A. has also submitted the calculation in two parts as per sales circular mentioned above, which is as under:-
“1. 1764x7.10=Rs.12,524.40 paise (for 60 days).
and he further calculated 1022 units (for 59 days) as under:-
- 0-295=295x4.50 paise=Rs.1327.50 paise (0-150)
- 296-492=196x5.25 paise=Rs.1029/- (150-250)
- 492-982=491x6.30 paise=Rs.3093.30 paise (250-500)
- 982-1022=40x7.10=Rs.284
-
Rs.5733.80 paise
Total: Rs.12,524.40 paise+Rs.5733.80 paise=Rs.18,258/-“
In this way, the same amount is calculated as per the bill Annexure R6 issued by the Ops to the complainant. In view of the calculation submitted by C.A. of Ops, we are convinced with the same. So, we found that the above-said calculation is genuine one as per sales circular. There is no ambiguity in the above-said bill Annexure R6 issued by the Ops to
the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:18.07.2019.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
