BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.242/14.

Date of instt.: 20.11.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 28.09.2015.

Mukhtiara son of Badama, resident of Village Balbera, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Operation Sub Division Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal through its Sub Divisional Officer.

2. Executive Engineer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

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

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Naresh Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. R.S.Dhull, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection No.PC-26-0101 and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that the bills issued for the month of March and May, 2014 have been showing meter reading to be as 5571 units, both old and new and the bills have been issued showing consumed 80 units mentioning the same consumption pattern.  It is further alleged that the Ops changed the old meter and installed a new one and have issued a bill dt. 09.09.2014 for sum of Rs.46,498/-.  The said bill dt. 09.09.2014 is wrong, illegal, excessive and against the actual consumption of electricity.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true and material facts are that a bill dt. 09.09.2014 amounting to Rs.46,498/- was issued to the complainant in which Rs.266/- were claimed as balance amount along with current bill.  This bill was issued as per actual consumption.  In this bill, the consumed units were shown 6290.  As complainant’s meter was changed on 09.07.2014 at final reading 15686 vide MCO No.1102.  As complainant was already billed upto 5571 reading, so, consumed units of changed meter were found 10115 (15686-5571=10115).  As the complainant was charged on average basis 80 units bimonthly for 48 times, so, these charged units 3870 were deducted from 10115 units and chargeable units were found 6245 units )10115-3870 already charged on average basis =6245 units) and 45 units of new meter was found consumed.  So, total chargeable units were found 6290 (6245+45=6290).  So, the bill dt. 09.09.2012 was issued as per actual consumption of 6290 units of changed meter and new meter.  So, this bill is legal, valid and justified and binding upon the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed evidence on 06.02.2015.  On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R3 and closed evidence on 19.05.2015.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.  

5.     It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant is having electricity domestic connection bearing account No.PC26-0101-Y.  The dispute between the parties is with regard to bill dt. 09.09.2014 amounting to Rs.46,498/-.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the said bill is wrong, illegal and excessive.  He further argued that the meter of complainant was defective as is clear from the bills Ex.C3 to Ex.C6, wherein the status of meter has been shown as “D”, this “D” means defective.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that the complainant’s meter was changed on 09.07.2014 at final reading 15686 vide MCO No.1102.  He further argued that as the complainant was already billed upto 5571 reading, so, consumed units of changed meter were found 10115 (15686-5571=10115).  He further argued that the complainant was charged on average basis 80 units bimonthly for 48 times, so, these charged units 3870 were deducted from 10115 units and chargeable units were found 6245 units (10115-3870) already charged on average basis =6245 units) and 45 units of new meter was found consumed.  So, total chargeable units were found 6290 (6245+45=6290).  So, the bill dt. 09.09.2012 was issued as per actual consumption of 6290 units of changed meter and new meter.  So, this bill is legal, valid and justified and binding upon the complainant. 

6.     On appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, we find that the Ops issued bills Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 on the average basis of bi-monthly and in the said bills consumed units were shown as 80 and meter status code was shown as defective.  Due to defective meter, the meter of complainant has been changed by the Ops.  When the meter was defective, then how the said meter will show the correct actual consumed units but insptie of that the Ops had taken the units shown by the defective meter to be as consumed units, which is totally wrong and illegal.  Hence, the bill dt. 09.09.2012 is illegal and void.  So, there is no force in the contention of ld. Counsel for the Ops.  Moreover, the Ops had issued the Meter Change Order on 21.02.2014 but the meter was changed at the spot on 09.07.2014 i.e. after about 4½ months.  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. 

So, 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 direct the Ops to overhaul the account of complainant and adjust all the paid bills according to the average of meter-reading of succeeding six months from the date of M.C.O. of meter and further to pay Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.28.09.2015.                                              (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                  President.

                  (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),     

                     Member.                       Member.