Haryana

StateCommission

A/432/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALA MAKKAR - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

03 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.432 of 2016

Date of Institution: 17.05.2016

                                                           Date of Decision: 03.06.2016

 

1. The executive Engineer (OP) Division, UHBBVN Ltd., Jagadhari, Distt. Yamuna Nagar (HRY.)
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-Urban Sub-Division, UHBVN Ltd, Jagadhari, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.
3. The Chairman, UHBVN Ltd, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

…..Appellants

Versus

 

Bala Makkar S/o Shri T.R.Makkar, R/o H.No.1329, Sector 17, HUDA, Jagadhari,Distt. Yamuna Nagar (HRY.)

                                      …..Respondent

 

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

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Mrs. Alka Joshi, Advocate counsel for appellants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI MEMBER:

 

1. The Executive Engineer (OP) Division, UHBVN. Ltd., Yamuna Nagar and Ors. - appellants are in appeal against the Order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Yamunanagar, whereby the complaint of Bala Makkar - Complainant has been partly allowed. The OPs have been directed not to charge the amount of Rs.20047/- from the complainant which has been shown as average adjustment in the bill dated 29.01.2013 and the same has been quashed by directing that if any amount has been deposited against this bill, the same adjusted in the future bills of the complainant.
2. In brief, the complainant was having an electricity connection bearing account No.Y32JU215752P at her premises and paying the bills regularly. The complainant received a bill No.6262 dated 29.01.2013 for the period from 28.10.2012 to 28.12.2012 for an amount of Rs.31130 from the OPs. The complainant visited the office of OPs and requested to correct the said bill but the OPs assured the complainant to adjust the amount in the next bill and asked the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.18000/- out of total bill amount of Rs.31130/-. On the assurance of the OPs, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.18000/- out of total bill amount of Rs.31,130/- but even on receiving the next bill No.6223 dated 27.03.2013 for an amount of Rs.19,995/-, an amount of Rs.13519.13 was again shown as arrear without adjusting the earlier disputed amount in the bill. The OPs did not adjust the bill amount as was assured despite repeated requests, whereupon, the complainant approached the District Forum challenging the demand being illegal and outcome of deficiency in service of the OPs, claiming refund of the excess amount of Rs.20,047/-, Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
3. Justifying their action, the OPs pleaded that the meter of the complainant was defective from October, 2008 to May, 2009 and same was replaced on 06^th June, 2009 vide MCO No.46/2201 as the old meter was burnt and the bills were sent on average basis for that period. On the basis of reading for the month of December, 2009, February, 2010 and April, 2010, the account of the complainant was overhauled with regard to preceding month of December, 2008, February, 2009, April, 2008 and after adjusting the amount of paid bills, the bill of balance amount was sent to the complainant and the complainant. The plea of the OPs was however, rejected and the learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint on 18.03.2016.
4. Against the impugned order dated 18.03.2016, the OPs / appellant have filed appeal before us reiterating their contentions raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record. It is evident that the original demand was for the period from 20.07.2009 to 29.01.2013, on which date, the demand vide bill No.6262 was made for the first time. This was about four years later, then the liability of the complainant originally started. This is contrary to the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. According to which, no due is recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due i.e. 20.07.2009 in the present case.
5. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid factual position, the appeal of the OPs is wholly devoid of force and hence dismissed with no order as to costs. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the District Forum partly allowing the complaint is upheld.

 

June 3rd, 2016         Urvashi Agnihotri                             R.K.Bishnoi,                                                 Member                                                Judicial Member                                           Addl. Bench                                     Addl.Bench              

S.K.