BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.325 of 2017.
Date of institution: 01.12.2017.
Date of decision:08.04.2019.
Khushvinder Singh, age 26 years, S/o Sh. Satwinder Singh, Ward No.2, near Aggarwal Dharamshala, Pundri, Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its S.D.O., ‘OP’, Division No.1, Pundri, Distt. Kaithal.
- Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its M.D., Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. Anil Saini, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Balbir Bansal, 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 having a domestic electricity connection No.KS-22/1812-K in his residential house. The complainant has paid all the bills. It is alleged that in the month of February, 2017 the electricity meter of complainant became got defective. It is further alleged that the complainant moved an application regarding change of defective meter but the Ops made a report on the said application that the reading is not visible and the status of meter was shown O.K. The Ops did not replace the meter and postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. The officials of the Ops replaced the defective meter with the new one after 4-5 months from the date of application. On 12.09.2017 the Ops issued the electricity consumption bill payable on 29.09.2017 for an amount of Rs.36,123/- for total units of 4746 as shown in the bill as per meter reading, whereas the meter of complainant was burnt and the units were not visible due to said reason. Similarly, in the month of November, 2017 the Ops issued an another bill for an amount of Rs.45,711/- payable on 29.11.2017 in which the Ops shown arrears of Rs.36,122/- and current consumption charges of Rs.8525/-. The complainant requested the Ops to correct the bill but the Ops did not listen the genuine request 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; estoppel; MCO No.30 dt. 07.03.2017 and meter change on 03.07.2017 and reading was 8645 on 03.07.2017; that the complainant did not deposit the previous bill, then the Ops had to issue bill for an amount of Rs.45,711/- for 4700 units as consumed by the complainant which includes arrears plus current consumption charges. The bill issued by the Ops is legal and valid. 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 Mark-C1 to Mark-C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and document Mark-R1 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, we found that it is not disputed that the complainant is having electricity connection No.KS-22/1812-K. The dispute between the parties is with regard to the bill dt. 12.11.2017 for sum of Rs.45,711/-, Mark-C5. The complainant moved the application dt. 17.02.2017, Mark-C7 regarding the defective meter and on the said application, it is reported by the meter-reader of Ops that the meter was burnt. Inspite of application moved by the complainant, the Ops have neither installed any check meter with the meter of complainant nor the meter of complainant was got checked from the laboratory. We have perused the MCO No.30 dt. 07.03.2017, Mark-R1 where from it is clear that the meter was changed on 03.07.2017 and reading is shown in the said M.C.O. as 8645 but on the application moved by the complainant, Mark-C7, the status of meter is reported as “burnt” and it is also reported on the said application that the reading is not visible. So, from the said M.C.O. Mark-R1, it is clear that the M.C.O. was got effected on 07.03.2017 and the reading was found as 8645, whereas the meter was replaced on 03.07.2017 i.e. more about four months. From perusal of report of J.E. on the application of complainant, Mark-C7 it was reported in the remarks that reading not visible and M.C.O. No.30 dt. 07.03.2017, Annexure-R1 the reading found as 8645 without any laboratory report, so, the reading shown is self contradictory which is not believable. Therefore, the said bill dt. 12.11.2017 for sum of Rs.45,711/- as consumed units 1317 issued by the Ops is wrong and illegal. In this regard, we are guided with the instructions of U.H.B.V.N. and as per instruction No.116, it has been mentioned as under:-
Difference or Dispute over the Accuracy.
Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter is or is not correct, the matter should be decided, upon the application by either party by the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as amended from time to time and if in his opinion, the meter is not correct, the Electrical Inspector shall estimate the amount of adjustment to be carried out in the consumer’s account for a period not exceeding six months preceding the date of test.
Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops in rendering services to the complainant.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and declare the bill in question as null and void and direct the Ops to overhaul the account of complainant of the disputed period and adjust all the paid bills according to the average of meter-reading of succeeding six months from the date of M.C.O. i.e. dt.07.03.2017. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order. 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.:08.04.2019.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
