Haryana

StateCommission

A/1041/2015

HVPN - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHANPAT - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

11 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                                    First Appeal No.1041 of 2015                                                                                       Date of Institution: 07.12.2015                                                                           Date of Decision: 11.07.2016

1. The Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through S.D.O, UHBVNL, Jhajjar, Tehsil & District Jhajjar.
2. XEN, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Jhajjar, Tehsil & District Jhajjar.
3. Account Officer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Jhajjar, Tehsil & District Jhajjar.

…..Appellants.

Versus

Dhanpat son of Shri Chandgiram, resident of village Babra Tehsil & District Jhajjar.

                                      …..Respondent

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

Present:                Ms.Alka Joshi, Advocate counsel for appellant.                Mr.A.K.Gehlawat, Advocate counsel for the respondent.       

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

                   It was alleged by the complainant he was having domestic electric connection bearing No.K70099 whose number was changed to H12E0910099H. He made all the payments as per bills issued upto 08.10.2012. On 11.12.2012 Opposite Party (O.P.) No.1  issued a bill showing Rs.20,261/- as of penalty and interest. He requested the O.Ps to correct the bill but to no avail. The bill was altogether wrong and the OPs were not entitled to recover the amount mentioned therein.

2.                On notice the Ops filed reply and alleged that the complainant paid the bill on average basis only. When account was scrutinized by the audit team, it was found that complainant was not making payment as per consumption. Half margin report was made by audit team in this regard on 07.07.2012. As per report of audit team of Rs.12108 was charged vide SC&AR No.528/9. When account of the complainant was again scrutinized  by the audit team it was found that during the month of July 2004 to June 2009 actual consumption of energy was recorded but computer issued bill on average basis. The average bills were issued for 63 months from the month of July, 2004 to Month of August 2009. Keeping in view all these facts his account was overhauled and demand of Rs.20261 was raised. When he did not pay that amount Rs.32369/- were charged against this account. The demand raised by them was in accordance with rules and regulations. Objections about maintainability of complaint, locus standi, estoppal, jurisdiction of Consumer Forum etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.                          After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Forum, Jhajjar (in short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide order dated 14.09.2015 and directed as under:-

“The respondent shall not recover the amount of Rs.32369/- from the complainant raised on account of arrears thorugh bill dated 11.12.2012 Ex.C23 from the complainant as well as through subsequent bills. However, the amount already deposited by the complainant, if any, towards the above said amount shall be adjusted by the respondents in the future billing of the complainant. The complainant had to file the present complaint due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and as such, has suffered mental agony and harassment. Hence, we further direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses”

4.                Feeling aggrieved there-from, O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

5.                Arguments heard. File perused.

6.                Learned counsel for the O.Ps vehemently argued that previous bills were issued on average basis. When this fact came to notice during inspection by audit team, his account was overhauled and revised bill was issued, as mentioned above.  He is liable to pay as per actual consumption and not on average basis. The demand is raised in accordance with provisions of law and cannot be termed as illegal. So, impugned order dated 14.09.2015 be set aside.

7.                          This argument is devoid of any force. As per reply furnished by the O.Ps. it is clear that the amount was pertaining to the period July, 2004 to August, 2009. This demand was raised in the year 2012 i.e. after more than almost 3 years keeping in view section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short “E.Act”). The recovery sought from the consumer is for the period 07/2004, whereas the demand notice was issued in the month of 2012 i.e. after a period of two years, which is barred under Section 56 (2) of E.Act which is reproduced as under:-

“Sec.56(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.”  

8.       Further, units consumed were mentioned in each and every bill, but, bill was issued on average basis.  As per Ex.C1, he consumed 80 units in the year 2007 and rate was 13 paisa per unit, therefore, amount came to Rs.10.40 paisa. As per bill Ex.C1, he was liable to pay Rs.2416/- only which was duly paid by him. Same is the situation in Ex.13. If less unit is consumed then minimum circle charges are recovered and the same were being paid by him. Had it not been so, there would

not even been difference in new and old units mentioned in this bills. The units mentioned in the bills tally with each other i.e. old and new. In these circumstances, complainant cannot be held liable for any fault.  It cannot be alleged that due to audit inspection this lapse came to the notice. It was not a lapse but the actual units mentioned in the bill. So, these arguments are of no avail. Findings of the learned District Forum are well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.

9.       Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.    

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 payer’s 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.”

July 11th, 2016              Urvashi Agnihotri                             R.K.Bishnoi,                                                       Member                                   Judicial Member                                                   Addl. Bench                                      Addl.Bench         

S.K.