Haryana

StateCommission

A/532/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANIL KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

02 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.532  of  2015

Date of the Institution: 16.06.2015

Date of Decision: 02.06.2016

 

UHBVNL Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Managing Director or Executive Engineer, Model town Division, UHBBVN, Panipat.

                                                                   .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

Anil Kumar S/o Late Sh.Sawaran Singh, r/o H.No.35, Bhatia Colony, Panipat, Distt., Panipat.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.B.D.Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Bhupender Singh, Advocate counsel for the  respondent.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

It was alleged by the complainant that he was consuming electricity against  connection No.Zf-11-0749F which was in the name of his father who died in the month of January 2010.  He was regularly paying the charges. He received bill No.00539 dated 09.10.2013 for Rs.1,38,325/- which was altogether wrong.  He requested opposite parties (O.Ps.) to correct the bill, but, to no avail.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that during audit of his account it was found that his meter was defective from the month of February 2010 to June 2011.  As per report of audit party his account was overhauled and demand of Rs.1,36,347/- was raised.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 01.04.2015  and directed as under:-

“We hereby allowed the present complaint with a  direction to opposite parties not to charge Rs.1,36,347/- and any surcharge accrued thereupon from the complainant.  In case any amount out of demanded amount by the opposite parties is deposited by the complainant same may also be refunded or adjusted in the account of the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization. Cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2200/- is also allowed to be paid by opposite parties to the complainant.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps- Appellant. has filed this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      At the time of the arguments, it was admitted by learned counsel for appellant that after audit and before raising demand, no notice was ever issued to the complainant, but, and penalty was rightly imposed by the department.

7.      This argument is of no use. Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has opined in Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vs. Ashwani Kumar 1993 (2) PLR 447 that notice is required before imposing penalty and an order about recovery should be passed after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person who was likely to be affected thereby. In the present case the appellant-O.P. has miserably failed to show that provisional assessment, made on the basis of audit report was ever served upon complainant. In this way it did not act as per provisions contained in the Electricity Act. Consumer can ask service provider to give him the details on basis of which  the  demand is made, which is not in the present case. 

8.      Impugned order dated 01.04.2015 is set aside. The appellant is directed to issue notice to the complainant and thereafter raise demand, if not satisfied with reply.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.1100/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

June 02nd, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.