Haryana

Panchkula

CC/312/2016

VIKAS BHARDWAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

ANIRUDH KUSH

06 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                   

Consumer Complaint No.	:	312 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	22.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	06.06.2017

 

Vikas Bhardwaj, R/o Flat No.102, GH-75, Sector-20, Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2.       Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Sub-Divisional Officer (Operation), Industrial Area, Phase 1, Panchkula, Tehsil & District Panchkula.

                                                                    ….Opposite Parties

 

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

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Anirudh Kush, Adv., for the complainant.

                             Ms.Alka Joshi, Adv., for the Ops.

 

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

1. Holder of an electricity connection (A/c No.56112440000 and K.No.A27PS413463), the complainant filed this complaint on averments which may be enumerated hereunder:-

For the period 20.01.2016 to 20.03.2016, the complainant was billed for an amount of Rs.71,318/-, for consumption of 8319 units for the above duration. Finding the billing to be highly exaggerated, the complainant visited the Ops and requested the SDO concern to look into the matter but nothing fruitful came out from that inter-action. On 20.04.2016, however, on the asking of Ops, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- against the inflated bill and he also deposited a sum of Rs.300/- for installation of a check meter. However, inspite thereof, the Ops did not install the check meter nor replaced the faulty meter and issued a bill for an amount of Rs.3,12,971/- for consumption of 27360 units during the period 20.03.2016 to 05.05.2016.

2. On 05.05.2016, the complainant again requested for the rectification of the exaggerated bills. The needful was not done but the request, in the alternative, made by the complainant for replacement of the meter was allowed and a new meter fixed. The Ops assured the complainant that the amount already paid would be adjusted in the bills to follow for the subsequent period of time.

Thereafter, the Ops issued a bill for consumption of 165 units for the duration 05.05.2016 to 20.05.2016. That consumption, thus, came to 11 units per day. That consumption was brought to the notice of the Ops alongwith the consumption indicated by the electricity bills for the preceding two years to prove that the average daily consumption never came to more than 50 units per day. However, the Ops did not adjust the bill as promised and issued a communication that the earlier meter had been got tested at the M &T Lab at Dhulkot (Ambala) which found it to be running 19.1% fast.

3. The complainant filed this complaint to obtain compensation for the deficiency in service as also mental harassment and in convenience and also for the adjustment of the bill for the period 20.01.2016 to 05.05.2016 in accord with the meter reading shown by the meter installed on 05.05.2016.
4. The Ops challenged the maintainability of the complaint and also the locus-standi of the complainant to file the complaint and also raised a plea that the complainant is stopped, by his act and conduct, from filing this complaint. While averring that the compliant is false and frivolous and that there is no cause of action in favour of the complainant to file the complaint, the Ops averred the correctness of the billing.
5. Affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documentation Annexure C-1 to C-12 were tendered into evidence by the complainant; while affidavit Annexure R-A, alongwith documentation Annexure R-1 to R-3 was tendered by the Ops into evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The foundational resistance on behalf of the Ops is based upon the fact that the earlier meter was got tested at the M & T Lab, Dhulkot (Ambala) and found to be running 19.1% fast. The Ops have, interestingly and inexplicably enough, not denied that the complainant did deposit an amount of Rs.300/- for the installation of a check meter which recorded consumption of 11 units per day (total recorded units being 165) for the period 05.05.2016 to 20.05.2016.
8. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the complainant is having a domestic meter. The premises where the meter is installed is a flat in a Group Houses Society. It is not even the averment by the Ops that the complainant is in occupation of an exceptionally large flat. The lodgment of grievance by the complainant from time to time in the matter of exaggerated building has not been controverted by the Ops.
9. In the totality of circumstances proved on the file, we are of the view that the complainant has been able to prove that he had been exaggeratedly billed and that he ought to have been billed on the basis of the consumption recorded by the meter installed on 05.05.2016, particularly when the Ops have not denied having been shown the electricity bills for the prededing two years (which showed an average consumption of not more than 50 units per day) and it is not the plea of the Ops that the earlier bills did not indicate the proper reading.
10. Though the M & T Lab too found the earlier electricity meter running 19.1% fast, that finding cannot be used to the detriment of the complainant because it is not even the averment that he had been associated at the time of the checking or that he had even been intimated about the checking of the meter at the M & T Lab.
11. While, thus, allowing the complaint, we would order that:-
    1. The Ops shall re-craft the electricity bill for the period 20.01.2016 to 20.03.2016 and also for the period 20.03.2016 to 05.05.2016 on the basis of the bill issued for the period 05.05.2016 to 20.05.2016 which showed a consumption of 165 units for a fortnight which would come to 11 units per day. If any amount is found to be payable by the complainant after adjustment of the already paid amount, the complainant shall make the due payment within 15 days from the receipt of the re-crafted bill;

 

2. The Ops shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in service and for mental agony and harassment;

 

3. The Ops shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as the cost of litigation.

The Ops shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date of its communication to them comes about. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

06.06.2017  JAGMOHAN SING      ANITA KAPOOR       DHARAM PAL

                     MEMBER                  MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                ANITA KAPOOR                                                                                               MEMBER