BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.23/17.
Date of instt.: 16.01.2017.
Date of Decision: 29.08.2017.
Patasho Devi aged about 42 years, wife of Sh. Rajinder, r/o Village Baba Ladana, Tehsil & District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- S.D.O. Sub Urban, Sub Division No.1, UHBVN Ltd., Kaithal.
- UHBVN Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its Secretary/Director.
..……..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. Aditya Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Balbir Bansal, 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 she is having electricity connection No.KU19-0879-Y and has been paying the bills regularly. It is alleged that nothing was due till August, 2015 towards the complainant. It is further alleged that in the bill for the month of October, 2015, there was a old reading 1999 of the meter, but in the bill for the month of December, 2015, the new reading was reported as 19059. The said bill is wrong and illegal. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops to correct the bill but the Ops did not do so. 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 reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, it is stated that the meter was got changed at the request of complainant herself; that the complainant was consuming more electricity unit but due to the carelessness of the then meter-reader, the actual reading of unit consumed was not recorded; that the actual reading was got recorded for the month of December, 2015 in which it was found that the complainant has consumed electricity units upto 19059 units till October, 2015; that the bill issued by the Ops is legal and valid. The other 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.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C13 and closed evidence on 05.04.2017. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.Rw1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11 and closed evidence on 19.05.2017.
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. Ld. counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant is having electricity connection No.KU19-0879-Y and has been paying the bills regularly. He further argued that nothing was due till August, 2015 towards the complainant. He further argued that in the bill for the month of October, 2015, there was old reading 1999 of the meter, but in the bill for the month of December, 2015, the new reading was reported as 19059. He further argued that on 24.06.2016, the meter was changed and the Ops installed a new meter on 28.06.2016. He further argued that the said bill for the month of December, 2015 is wrong and illegal. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Ops argued that the meter was got changed at the request of complainant herself. He further argued that the complainant was consuming more electricity unit but due to the carelessness of the then meter-reader, the actual reading of unit consumed was not recorded. He further argued that the actual reading was got recorded for the month of December, 2015 in which it was found that the complainant has consumed electricity units upto 19059 units till October, 2015. He further argued that the bill issued by the Ops is legal and valid.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the complainant had domestic connection bearing No.KU19-0879-Y at her residence. It is admitted case of the parties that the meter of the complainant was changed on the request of complainant. The dispute between the parties is with regard to the electricity bill issued in the month of December, 2015. The Ops got checked the meter of the complainant and the checking report of the meter placed on the file is Ex.R2. The Ops have stated in their reply that the Ops have no option except to change electricity tariff at the average basis upon the total consumption i.e. total consumption 17060/48 (previous four years) = 355 units (per two months). This calculation of the Ops is totally wrong. If the Ops take the average of previous four years and per two months, then the units consumed 17060 should have been divided by 24 and not by 48. The average of the consumption units i.e. 355 as mentioned by the Ops is per month not per two months. If the average is taken per two months, then it might be more than 700 units per two months. As already stated above, the meter of the connection of complainant has been changed vide MCO order dt. 24.06.2016, Ex.R9 and it has become very much relevant that what was the consumption shown by the new meter. The complainant has mentioned in his complaint that after the change of his electricity meter, the consumption in the bills issued for the month of August, 2016, October, 2016 and December, 2016 is 65, 222 and 2 respectively. This fact has not been denied by the Ops rather the same has been admitted vide Ex.R5. Even after the change of meter, the average of consumption unit has not exceeded upto 355 units. No doubt, the previous electricity meter of complainant has been got checked but there is no such checking report on the file that there was no jump in the meter. In these circumstances of the case, the allegation of the complainant that there was a jump in his previous electric meter cannot disbelieve in toto. In these circumstances the stand of the Ops that the complainant has some interaction with the meter-reader has no force. As already stated above, the consumption of units in the electricity bills after the change of meter which is on the basis of actual consumption has not reached upto 355 units, the average taken by the Ops. According to the Ops, in the month of December, 2015, the units consumed i.e. 17060 were according to the actual meter-reading and at that time, the reading in the meter was 19059. The previous electric meter of the complainant was changed vide M.C.O. dt. 24.06.2016 and at that time, the reading in the previous electric meter was 19409 units. Even if the average of these 6 months i.e. from December, 2015 to June, 2016 is taken, then the total units consumed in these 6 months were 350 (i.e. 19409-19059=350 units) only. It is also the case of the Ops that the previous meter was in O.K. condition and the same is also clear from the meter checking report, Ex.R2. In these circumstances of the case, the average of consumed units of the complainant 355 units per month is not correct. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice will be met if the account of complainant for previous four years upto December, 2015 be overhauled on the basis of the average of the new meter for one year. Hence, the bill in question issued in the month of December, 2015 for the consumption of 17060 units is declared as null and void.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to overhaul the account of the complainant on the basis of the average of succeeding one year from the date of M.C.O. i.e. 24.06.2016. No order as to costs. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of 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.
Dt.29.08.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
