BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                           Complaint  No.160 of 2011

                                                           Date of Instt. 22.03.2011

                                                           Date of decision: 24.02.2015

Rakeshwar Jain alias Rameshwar Jain son of Shri Rajeshwar Jain resident of near Ram Lila Ground, Railway Road, Karnal.

                                                                     ……..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1.AEE, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.City Sub Division, near Bus stand, Karnal.

2.Managing Director, UHBVNL, Sector 6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

.

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

Before      Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma……Member.

.

Present:-  Sh.Sanjay Singla Advocate for the complainant.

                 Sh.Sanjiv Kamboj  Advocate for the Ops.

 ORDER

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that the complainant is the consumer qua the OPs vide domestic electricity connection bearing NO.LC-38-4356-L and has been paying the electricity dues regularly. It has been alleged that  on 13.3.2011 a bill of Rs.5749/- has been received by the complainant and in the said bill an amount of Rs.5199/- has been added illegally whereas the actual consumption charges of the complainant was Rs.550/-. The complainant requested the Ops to withdraw the demand of said amount of Rs.5199/- but the Ops refused to do so which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed the present complaint  and has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw the said illegal demand of Rs.5199/- and has sought compensation for the harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. He has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contents of the complaint alongwith some other documents.

2                 On notice the Ops appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that  the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint was not legally maintainable ; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and to try the present complaint and that the present complaint was an abuse of the process of law.

                   On merits, it has been contended that premises of the complainant were checked by the competent checking party of the Ops and on checking it has been found that previously a connection No.P-185 was working at the same premises which was  made PDCO due to non payment of an amount of Rs.5199/- which was in the name of Shri Rajinder Jain  and due to this reason the said amount has been credited in the account of the complainant. SDO concerned of the Ops has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contentions made in the written statement.

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

4.                Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that  the complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops on the allegations that in the bill  dated 13.3.2011 Ex.CW/1/ 2 issued to the complainant an amount of  Rs.5199/- has been illegally added by the Ops.

                     The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the said amount cannot be charged from the complainant because the said amount was not credited in the account of the complainant within  two years from the date when the said amount had become due  or when the connection bearing account NO.P-185 was made PDCO and as such the said amount cannot be recovered from the  complainant in view of the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act being time barred.

5.                As per contention of the Ops previously a connection No.P-185 was working at the same premises which was  made PDCO due to non payment of an amount of Rs.5199/- which was in the name of Shri Rajinder Jain  and due to this reason the said amount has been credited in the account of the complainant.

6.                  For the decision of this case, we also deem it proper to refer to Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, wherein it has been mentioned as under:

                                     Not withstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum  due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became  first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the license shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.”

                   It is pertinent to mention here that even in the written statement the Ops have not mentioned as to when the said connection bearing account No. P-185 in the name of Sh.Rajinder Jain was made PDCO. It is also pertinent to mention that the complainant approached the Ops and sought RTI information regarding the period for which the disputed amount of Rs.5199/- which has been included in the bill dated 13.3.2011  pertained  but in the reply to the said RTI information, it has been mentioned that the connection was in the name of  Shri Rajinder Jain and defaulting amount of Rs.5199/- has been included in the bill  in the year 13.03.2011. Therefore, even in the information to the RTI application the Ops have not mentioned the exact date as to which period the said amount of Rs.5199/- pertained. Therefore, the demand of the said amount of Rs.5199/-  is time barred and the same cannot be demanded by the OP from the complainant as envisaged u/s 56(2) of the Electricity Act.

7.                          Therefore, as a sequel to our above discussion it has to be held that demand of Rs.5199/- from the complainant by the OP is illegal and unjustified. Therefore, we direct the Ops to withdraw the said demand of Rs.5199- (as shown in the bill  dated 13.3.2011 Ex.CW/1/2)  from the complainant. The complainant shall  also be entitled for a sum of Rs.2200/- for the legal fee and litigation expenses. The present complaint is accepted accordingly. The OPs shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

24.02.2015                                                  (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                   President,

District Consumer Disputes  

Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Subhash Chander Sharma )

                             Member

Present:-  Sh.Sanjiv Singla Advocate for the complainant.

                 Sh.Sanjiv Kamboj  Advocate for the OP

                Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

24.02.2015                                                  (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                   President,

District Consumer Disputes  

Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Subhash Chander Sharma )

                             Member