Haryana

StateCommission

A/1098/2014

The SDO, UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

Delhi Public School - Opp.Party(s)

08 Dec 2014

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.1098 of  2014

Date of the Institution: 08.12.2014

Date of Decision: 15.01.2019

 

The SDO, UHBVNL, Murthal Sonepat

                                                                   .….Appellants

Versus

 

Delhi Public School, Bharlgarh-Kehwra road, Village Khewra, Sonepat 131001 through its Capt, Jitender Singh Mann.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

                    Mrs.Manjula, Member.

 

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

                    Mr.J.S.Virk, Advocate for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the complaint are that the complainant was running an educational institution and having electricity connection, which has been paying the bill regularly.  O.P. illegally demanded Rs.15,16,046/- from the complainant vide memo dated 12.02.2011. The complainant approached the OP for clarification of the disputed amount, but, instead of clarifying the amount, OP demanded an amount of Rs.15,160,46/- as balance charges from August 2008 onward.  He requested them to allot him to deposit monthly bill of Rs.1,54,534/- as part payment but OP No.2 and 3 demanded Rs.17,03,992/-.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.

2.      O.P. controverted his averments and alleged  that  OP rightly demanded Rs.15,16,046/-.  The load was more than 10 KW and CT 15 to 5 was fixed on the meter of the complainant. The consumption in the meter would show only 1/3, the bill would be given by multiply of 3 units shown by the meter.  Previously the bill was wrongly sent by multiplier of 2.  the bill of the complainant was to be multiplied by 3.  The calculation was done due to clerical mistake. The O.P. was entitled to recover the difference of amount from the complainant. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

3.      After hearing both the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat  allowed the complaint  vide impugned order dated 08.11.2011and directed as under:-

                             “The perusal of the case file shows that vide order dated 25.02.2011, the complainant was directed to deposit 25% of Rs.17,03,992/- with the respondents and 25% of Rs.17,03,992/- comes to Rs.4,25,998/-.  If the amount of Rs.4,25,990/- was deposited by the complainant with the respondent, in that even, it is directed to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.2,71,464/- i.e. after deducting Rs.1,54,534/- as bill for the month of 2/2011 from the amount of Rs.4,25,998/- (25%) of Rs.17,03,992/-) and the amount of Rs.2,71,464/- is directed to be refunded to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of its deposit till realization.  Further the respondent is directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousands) for rendering deficient services and further to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rs.Two thousands) under the head of litigation expenses.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 

5.      This argument have been advanced by Mr. B.D.Bhatia, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.J.S.Virk, the learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

6.      As a matter of fact, the basic and foremost question arises for the adjudication by the learned District Forum as well as this Commission  is as to whether the demand raised by the present appellant for the outstanding amount, which has not been paid by the respondent-complainant is barred by limitation or under the provisions of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003.  The learned District forum has observed that as per the provision enshrined under section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003,  the present appellant cannot raise the demand as a period of more than two years has already been expired.

7.      Contrary to it, it has been argued by Mr.B.D.Bhatia that the period of two years has to be completed from the date of issuance of notice.  In this case, the period of two years had been expired from the date of issuing the notice calling upon the complainant to make the payment of the outstanding amount. As far as outstanding amount is concerned, there is nothing on the record that this amount has ever been paid by the complainant, but, the oral submission made by the counsel for the appellant that the respondent has paid all the outstanding amount.  As per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in a celebrated authority titled as  Bank of India Vs. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others 2017 (4) PLR 527, M/s Rototex Polyester & Anr. Vs.Administrator, Administration of Dadra & Nagar Havli Electricity department, Silvassa & Ors. 2011 (1) RCR (Civil) 61 and M/s Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Ors, 2008 (1) AIR Jhar R.636, it has been categorically observed by the Hon’ble Jharkhand, Bombay and Punjab and Haryana High Court that period of two years are to be computed from the date of issuing the notice.  If the period expires after the notice of two years, in that eventuality, the demand cannot be raised.  Placing upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the date of notice issuing against the complainant, calling upon the payment of outstanding amount and as per the record, a huge amount is outstanding against the complainant. Since it is public money and running into lacs of rupees, it would be a great loss to the state exchequer if the amount is not found due payable at different phases and as such, whatever the contention has been raised on behalf of the complainant-respondent would render no assistance and consequently the amount found to be recoverable from the complainant-respondent.  The judgement placed by the counsel for the respondent titled DHBVNL Vs. Dr.Pawan Goyal and Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Vs. Punjab State Electricity 2014 SCC online Aptel 37 does not render any help to the respondent in this case. The learned District forum gravely and manifestly erred while allowing the complaint and passing orders. Hence, while accepting the appeal and concurring with the arguments advanced by Mr. B.D.Bhatia, the learned counsel for the appellant, there are sufficient grounds to accept the appeal and while accepting the appeal, the impugned order dated  08.11.2011 passed by the learned District Forum is set aside for all intents and purposes and the complaint is accordingly stands dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

January 15th, 2019     Manjula                Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                              Member               Judicial Member                                                          Addl.Bench                    Addl.Bench                 

S.K.