Uttar Pradesh

Aligarh

CC/225/2022

INTIZAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

DAKSHINACHAL VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD - Opp.Party(s)

20 Apr 2023

ORDER

न्यायालय जिला उपभोक्ता विवाद प्रतितोष आयोग अलीगढ

Complaint Case No. CC/225/2022 ( Date of Filing : 21 Nov 2022 )   1. INTIZAR S/O ABDUL MAJID AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O KABELA TURKMAN GATE ALIGARH ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. DAKSHINACHAL VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD AGRA THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICITY URBAN DISTRIBUTION DIVISIONIII 4/55 KISHORE NAGAR ALIGARH ............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:     HON'BLE MR. HASNAIN QURESHI PRESIDENT   HON'BLE MR. ALOK UPADHYAYA MEMBER   HON'BLE MRS. PURNIMA SINGH RAJPOOT MEMBER

PRESENT:

Dated : 20 Apr 2023

Final Order / Judgement The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs- Ops be directed not to recover the alleged electricity charges Rs.128568/ raised in the bill dated 18.5.2019 as being not recoverable under the law. Ops be directed to refund the security amount Rs.9000/ with interest at the 9% per annum.  Ops be directed to pay litigation expenses Rs.10000/.  The Complainant has stated that he has the electricity  connection no 4821363218 and the meter supplying the electricity was burnt which was replaced by new meter on 7.3.2019. The meter was tested by the lab of the ops without given any information to him and the text report dated 31.3.2019 cannot be relied upon and the result of the text report cannot be taken consideration for assessment for the electricity charges. The electricity bill dated 18.5.2019 amounting Rs.128568 is not based on correct assessment as in case of defective meter. The electricity charges shall be assessed on the basis of average consumption of the electricity during the past month and thus the amount of electricity bill is not recoverable and the process of disconnection was illegal . the demand of the electricity bill dated 18.5.2019 was not made continuously and more recovery was issued since the date of raising the bill 18.5.2019 and the  demand is time barred.    Ops have stated in WS that the complainant was supplied electricity with the alleged connection no. and on 31.3.2019 a new meter of 9KW load was installed. The connection was permanently disconnected the notice was issued for recovery. The commission has no jurisdiction under provisions of code 2005..   Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings.  Ops have also filed their affidavit and papers  in support of his pleadings We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant entitled to get the relief against the amount raised in bill dated 18.5.2019 ?  Admittedly, the meter was replaced by new meter and electricity connection was permanently disconnected on account of committing default in payment of the electricity dues. It is evident from lab test report dated 11.3.2019 that the meter was burnt and assessment was to be made as per rules. As the meter was burnt the electricity consumption could not be recorded by the meter and in case of the meter not recording the consumption, the consumer shall be billed for the period  between the date of last reading and the date of replacement of defective meter, on the basis of average consumption of 3 billing cycle prior to the last reading in view of clause 5.7( d) of the code 2005. Thus in case of defective meter assessment shall be made on the basis of average consumption as mentioned earlier. It was not followed in making assessment against the complainant. besides this, the burnt meter was to be tested on the date fix for testing the meter after giving information to the complainant and the complainant had be right to get to the meter tested in independent test lab and thus the result of the lab test of the Ops in the absence of opporunatity  to be given to the complainant for testing the meter in independent lab is not reliable. Moreover the amount of bill dated 18.5.2019 was not under the process of continuous recovery for 2 years since the date it has become due on 18.5.2019. there is nothing on record that the continuous recovery was made since the 18.5.2019 and therefore after expiration of 2 years the alleged recovery cannot be made effective in view of section 56(2) of Electricity Act and clause 6.15 (b) of code ,2005 and thus alleged recovery is bad in law and is time barred. Accordingly ops are bound to cancel the alleged recovery and complainant is entitle for relief claimed.   The question formulated above is decided in favour of the complainant The second question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to get security amount?  The complainant has been found not liable to pay the alleged amount raised bill date 18.5.2019 and the electricity connection has been permanently disconnected and therefore complainant is entitled to get the security amount with interest. The question formulated above is decided in favour of the complainant  We hereby direct to ops not to recover alleged electricity charges 128568/ raised in bill dated 18.5.2019 as  being not recoverable under the law and  direct the op to pay security amount Rs.9000/ with pendite lite and future interest at the rate 9% per annum. and ligation expenses Rs.5000/.  Op shall comply with the direction within a month failing which OPs shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties. A copy of judgment be sent to Chief Engineer  for necessary action. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.

[HON'BLE MR. HASNAIN QURESHI] PRESIDENT     [HON'BLE MR. ALOK UPADHYAYA] MEMBER     [HON'BLE MRS. PURNIMA SINGH RAJPOOT] MEMBER