Haryana

Karnal

CC/20/2021

Satya Narain - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Kundi

08 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.20 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.12.01.2021

                                                        Date of Decision: 08.01.2023

 

Satya Narain son of late Shri Surinder Nath, aged about 75 years, resident of 201R, Model Town, Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

UHBVN, through its SDO City Sub Division, Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Suman Singh…..……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Vishal Kundi, counsel for the complainant.

               Shri Yashbir Singh, counsel for the opposite party.

 

                 (Vineet Kaushik, Member)

 

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is using electricity connection from the last more than fifty years. The old electricity connection A/c No.SD12-2708 (new A/c No.2216520000) is in the name of father of complainant. The complainant being legal heir and son is the consumer of the OP. The complainant has been regularly making the payment of the bill as demanded by the OP. The issue in hand started when the meter of the complainant was changed alongwith other consumers in the vicinity in the month of August 2018. Old meter reading was 79161 units and the reading on the refurbished meter installed by the OP was 6811 units. The complainant was surprised when in December 2018 the officials of the OP came to disconnect the electric supply of the complainant on the ground of non-payment of bill amounting to Rs.82,397/-. He was given a copy of bill dated 12.10.2018 of the even amount. In addition, the bill mentioned the old reading of the removed meter but no new reading from the new meter was mentioned in the bill. The complainant highlighted the above discrepancies to the OP who admitted their fault and ensured to update the MCO and correct the bill. They also asked the complainant to deposit Rs.19,037/- in order to avoid disconnection and promised to overhaul his account and send an accurate bill next time. The complainant immediately deposited this account. The complainant never received any bill from the OP for next few months. In the month of September 2019, the officials of the OP again reached the premises to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant. The complainant again enquired about the reason for the same and was surprised to learn that now there was a bill amounting to more than Rs.2 lacs is pending against him. He immediately went to the office of OP and requested them not to disconnect the connection and provide him the bill so that he may make the payment. He provided the bill and upon inspection, it transpired the bill dated 14.06.2019 is for Rs.30,363 units from 03.08.2018 to 14.06.2019. It is pertinent to mention here that the old reading was shown to be that of the above mentioned old removed meter 79161 units and new reading was from the new meter 9524 units. The complainant again pointed out to the OP that his meter was changed in the month of August 2018 and therefore, his consumption cannot be 30363 units. The OP issued two subsequent bills dated 12.08.2019 and 05.10.2019 with average meter reading. The OP had undertaken to correct the bill and send a revised bill next time. They also ensured not to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant. It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant completed all the formalities of change of connection in his name from his father and the OP has ensured that it will be done soon. The complainant never received any subsequent bills from the OP. The meter was again changed for the second time alongwith other consumers in the vicinity in December 2019. Now again in the month of January 2021, the officials of the OP disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant from backend. The complainant enquired about the reason and was surprised to learn that now the pending amount against him has become almost Rs.5 lacs and contrary to his expectations. The complainant requested the officials to reconnect his electricity till the bill is corrected. The OP accepted his request but the complainant under the apprehension that the OP will disconnect his supply, the complainant has filed the present complaint. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction and locus standi. On merits, it is pleaded that the bill in question has been sent to the complainant after overhauling his account and that amount is regarding the actual consumption and no extra amount has been charged from him and as such the complaint of the complainant is based upon false and baseless facts. The complainant was not paying the current energy charges regularly after the last payment made by him of Rs.19037/- on 04.12.2018 as per office record. The meter of the complainant was changed by L&T on 17.12.2019, because the meters were replaced with smart meter in a large scales and the MCO missed and could not entered timely and due to this the bills of the complainant in the month of March 2020 could not issued on actual reading and after verified the facts from record, it is found that actually the old meter of the consumer was removed from site and replaced with smart meter on IR-6811 and keeping in view the all above facts and record, the account of the complainant was overhaulted 3/2020 to 12/2020 disputed period and found amount with surcharge of Rs.4,18,289/- only adjustable and the advice for the same has been sent back office for adjust/refund in the account of the consumer vide SC&AR No.87/87/316 dated 27.01.2021 and same will be adjust/refund in future bill and the rest of amount of Rs.69786/- only payable bill also submitted to consumer on 28.01.2021 for the period the same but the complainant have not paid the same till today as per office record. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 19.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vinay Kumar AEE Ex.OPW1/, copy of site verification report Ex.OP1, copy of bill payment details Ex.OP2, copy of bill calculation Ex.OP3, copy of bills Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP13 and closed the evidence on 29.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is consumer of electricity connection. The complainant has been regularly making the payment of the bill as demanded by the OP. The complainant was surprised when in December 2018 the officials of the OP came to disconnect the electric supply of the complainant on the ground of non-payment of bill amounting to Rs.82,397/-. The OP also asked the complainant to deposit Rs.19,037/- in order to avoid disconnection and promised to overhaul his account and send an accurate bill next time. The complainant immediately deposited this account. He further argued that the OP shows an amount of Rs.2 lacs is pending against him. The OP issued two subsequent bills dated 12.08.2019 and 05.10.2019 with average meter reading. The complainant never received any subsequent bills from the OP. In the month of January 2021, the officials of the OP disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant from backend. In this way, there is clear deficiency in service on the part of OP and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the account of the complainant has been overhaul and no extra amount has been charged from him and as such the complaint of the complainant is based upon false and baseless facts. The complainant was not paying the current energy charges regularly after the last payment made by him of Rs.19037/- on 04.12.2018 as per office record. The meter of the complainant was changed by L&T on 17.12.2019, because the meters were replaced with smart meter in a large scales and the MCO missed and could not entered timely and due to this the bills of the complainant in the month of March 2020 could not issued on actual reading and after verified the facts from record, it is found the actually the old meter of the consumer was removed from site and replaced with smart meter on IR-6811 and keeping in view the all above facts and record, the account of the complainant was overhaulted 3/2020 to 12/2020 disputed period and found amount with surcharge of Rs.4,18,289/- only adjustable and the advice for the same has been sent back office for adjust/refund in the account of the consumer vide SC&AR No.87/87/316 dated 27.01.2021 and same will be adjust/refund in future bill and the rest of amount of Rs.69786/- only payable bill also submitted to consumer on 28.01.2021 for the period the same but the complainant have not paid the same till today as per office record and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           This Commission, vide order dated 15.01.2021, has directed the OPs not to disconnect the electricity connection of the premises of the complainant and the outstanding amount of Rs.4,88,075/- was also stayed till filing of written version. The OPs were also directed to issue subsequent bills to the complainant as per consumption. The fact that an amount of Rs.4,88,075/- was due towards the complainant is proved from the bill dated 18.12.2020 Ex.C4. In its written version, the OP has submitted that the account of the complainant was overhauled and an amount of Rs.69786/- was found due instead of Rs.4,88,075/-. As per the OP, again the account of the complainant was re-checked and an amount of Rs.13,355/- was found due towards the complainant and this fact has also been proved from the bill Ex.OP4.      

11.           The onus to prove his case was upon the complainant that the OP has issued the bill illegally but the complainant has failed to prove by leading cogent and convincing evidence that the disputed bills have been issued by the OP is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. As per the OP, the complainant has already deposited the bill amount. From the bill payment detail Ex.OP2 and calculation sheet Ex.OP3, it is proved that the bill in dispute was issued rightly and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.   

12.           Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

 

Announced

Dated: 08.01.2023                                                                   

 

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                   Member                        Member