Haryana

StateCommission

A/95/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHEM SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.NEGI

22 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.95 of 2016

Date of Institution:29.01.2016

Date of decision:22.03.2016

 

1.      Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sector-6, Panchkula, through its Managing Director.

2.      Executive Engineer ‘OP’ Division, UHBVNL, Kurukshetra,  Tehsil Thanesar,Distt. Kurukshetra.

3.      S.D.O. (OP) Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Ladwa, Tehsil Thanesar,District Kurukshetra.

…Appellants

Versus

 

Bhem Singh S/o Shri Karta Ram, R/o Village Brahn, Tehsil thanesar,District Kurukshetra.

…Respondent

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.B.S.Negi, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short U.H.B.V.N.L) is in appeal against the order dated November 09, 2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short District Forum), Kurukshetra. 

2.      Bhim Singh filed complaint before the District Forum alleging that he was having domestic electric connection No.K23KL222610Y   and making payment of electricity charges regularly to the O.Ps. He received bill of Rs.81974/- dated 03.04.2012, which was illegal.  He requested opposite parties (O.Ps.) to delete the disputed amount, but, they refused to correct the same.

3.      Appellants-opposite parties filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that  audit party of the Nigam found sum of Rs.81974/- due towards him. An above mentioned amount was outstanding against him so the same was added in bill and complaint be dismissed.

4.      After hearing both the parties, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (In short District Forum), Kurukshetra allowed the complaint  vide impugned order dated 09.11.2015 and directed as under:-

“In view of the said circumstances, this complaint stands allowed and opposite parties are restrained from recovering the amount in question from the complainant.  It is also made clear that the amount deposited by the complainant, if any during the pendency of the present proceedings shall be liable to be refunded to him.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved, therefrom, the appellants-O.Ps. have preferred this appeal alleging that District Forum has not appreciated the law and facts available on the file properly.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the payment was not barred  under section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (In short Act) because as per opinion of Honble Jharkhand High Court expressed in M/s Tata Steel Ltd. and etc. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Ors. 2008 (1) AIR Jhar R.636, the limitation is to be computed from the date of knowledge.  In the present case during audit this fact came to the notice on 10.08.2011 and that is why this amount was added in bill in question.

8.      This argument is devoid of any force.  Recovery sought from the consumer is for the period 09/2008, whereas the demand notice was issued in the month of August 10th, 2011 i.e. after a period of two years

Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, reads as under:-

(2) Notwithstanding 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 licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.

9.      From the perusal  of aforesaid provision no sum can be recovered from the consumer after the period of two years from the date when it became due. The appellants did not lead any evidence to prove as to on what basis and since when the sum of  81974/- was chargeable. This view is also fortified by the opinion of Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court expressed in Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr.Vs.Rajinder Kumar 2013 (4) Civil Court Cases 247, wherein it was held that when surcharge was claimed in the year 2000 and the same pertained to the period 21.10.1992 to 10.12.1994. It was held that the claim for outstanding dues is barred by law of limitation. 

10.    The opposite parties-appellants may fix the responsibility of the concerned official, who was responsible for this lapse and the loss suffered by department may be recovered from the concerned employee/employees as per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in  Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 and Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K.Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed  in Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K.Gupta (Supra) as under

When the Court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man.  It is the tax payers money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law.  It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund ‘immediately’ but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behavior by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.

11.    In view of above discussion, the order passed by the District Forum was perfectly right. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

12.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

March 22nd,  2016	Urvashi Agnihotri Member, Addl. Bench		R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member, Addl. Bench
S.K.