BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.72 of 2021.
Date of institution: 18.03.2021.
Date of decision:18.02.2022.
Prem Pal aged 52 years son of Sh. Ravi Dass r/o Village Pilni, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Sub Division Officer, Operation Sub Division No.1, UHBVN, Pundri, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.
- Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Secretary.
….Respondents.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
CORAM: DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.
SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. J.B.Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Karan Gaur, Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT
Prem Pal-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.
In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is having a domestic electricity connection of 0.23 KW sanctioned load bearing account No.X52KN385459 and he has been paying the bills regularly. In the month of October, 2019 the electricity meter was showing excess reading than the actual electricity consumed, therefore, the complainant moved an application before the respondent No.1, in the month of November, 2019 for checking of electricity meter and in the month of April, 2020 the employees of respondent No.1 came in the house of complainant and took the meter for checking in the lab and new electricity meter was installed. At the time of removing old meter, the employees of respondents assured the complainant that at the time of checking of meter in lab, the complainant will be called and only in his presence, the meter would be checked. But no notice of any kind was ever served upon the complainant in this regard. On 09.01.2021, the respondents sent a telephonic message to thereby asking him to pay account bearing No.9296651000 to complainant to Rs.75,65,507.25 with due date 08.01.2021, otherwise, his electricity connection shall be disconnected. Now in the month of February, 2020 the respondents issued a bill bearing No.929660123272 amounting to Rs.3,49,439/- to the complainant on account of consumption of 360.48 units of electricity energy. The said bill is stated to be wrong and illegal. The complainant requested the respondents to correct the bill as per reading but they did not redress the grievances of complainant. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
2. Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that as per official record, the bills were issued in the month of August, 2019 as per actual consumption with old reading 4372 & final reading 4571. Thereafter, further bills were issued in the month of October, 2019 to June, 2020 against connection in dispute on average basis due to non-availability of actual consumption of electricity energy and ultimately on 22.06.2020 the meter installed at the premises was replaced with the new one vide M.C.O. bearing No.14/4415 dt. 03.03.2020 effected on 22.06.2020. At the time of removal of old meter, same was showing consumption of 50574 units of electricity energy. 4571 units of electricity energy have already been charged from the complainant, while issuing bill in the month of August, 2019, as such, remaining 46003 units (4571 units already charged-50574 units as consumed through meter=46003 units) were found uncharged from the complainant. Accordingly, vide sundry bearing No.183/52/234, amount of Rs.3,48,242/- was charged into account pertaining to connection in dispute and accordingly, the complainant was required to deposit the said amount apart from current cycle consumption while issuing bill under dispute in the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the respondents tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. Sh. Karan Gaur, Adv. for the respondents has stated that in the month of August, 2019, in the old meter, reading of the meter was 4571 units which was paid by the consumer Prem Pal. In the next electricity bill w.e.f. October, 2019 to June, 2020 on average basis, there was units of 50574 which was admitted by the consumer Prem Pal. Thereafter, on 22.06.2020 the electricity meter was got changed and the old meter was sent for testing in the laboratory and due notice was sent to the consumer Prem Pal. Thereafter, meter reading was read to be 50574 as consumed units and thereafter, bill of 46003 units which was 50574 units minus 4571 units=46003 units were counted on the electricity meter and a bill of Rs.3,48,242/- was raised against the consumer Prem Pal.
Sh. J.B.Sharma, counsel for the complainant has stated that on the notice for testing, report was not received by the consumer Prem Pal. Rebutting his arguments, Sh. Karan Gaur, Adv. for the respondents has stated that notice is sent to the house of consumer through lineman etc. and there is no procedure of receipt but notice is sent to the complainant. However, in the test report in the lab, there is no report of tampering of meter. The meter is found to be alright and not tampered. Hence, the reading of 46003 units in 9 months is not on the higher side. The authority laid down in the case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Vs. Sudesh Rani, 2016(2) Law Herald 1607 relied upon by the counsel for complainant but this authority is not applicable to the facts of present case because this is relating to Section 135 i.e. for theft of electricity. But in the present case, there is no tampering found in the meter neither this is a case of tampering of the meter. Hence, this case law is distinguishable.
In view of our aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the case and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, at this stage, Sh. Karan Gaur, Adv. for the respondents has offered to reduce slab rate by breaking the slabs of the entire consumption of units. Secondly, he has offered to leave the surcharge from the aggregate bill by breaking the bill in six installments as per relevant rules of electricity.
7. Thus, in view of our aforesaid discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted to the effect that the complainant shall deposit the six installments of the entire bill and shortage break-up of amount of electricity bill so that there shall be reduction in slab rate. The complainant shall deposit all the six installments on bi-monthly basis without any default. A copy of said order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:18.02.2022.
(Dr. Neelima Shangla)
President.
(Rajbir Singh), (Suman Rana),
Member. Member.
Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.
