Haryana

StateCommission

A/1087/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHARAMBIR - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.NEGI

22 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.1087 of 2015

Date of Institution:18.12.2015

Date of decision:22.03.2016

 

U.H.B.V.N.L., through its SDO, (OP) Sub Division, UHBVN Beri.

…Appellant

Versus

 

Dharambir S/o Sh.Rattan Singh R/ovillage Gawalison Tehsil Jhajjar Distt. Jhajjar (permanent residence at Shri Ram Nagar colony Sunaria chowk, Rohtak.

…Respondent

 

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

 

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

 

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 September 30th, 2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short ‘District Forum’), Jhajjar. 

2.      Dharambir filed complaint before the District Forum alleging that he was having electricity connection No.H35JN04049HN.  He left the village and shifted to Rohtak in the year 2005 and connection was disconnected by the Opposite party (O.P.), but, he received bill of Rs.1,78,334/- dated 01.11.2014, which was illegal.

3.      Appellant-opposite party filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that  there was no application for disconnection in the office record of O.P.  He deliberately did not deposit the amount of bills for the last 14-15 years and Rs.1,96,332/- were pending against him.  Even the meter was not existing at the site i.e. why letter N was mentioned in the record.  Objections about estopple, jurisdiction of Forum, concealing true facts, locus standi, maintainability of complaint, etc. Were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (In short “District Forum”), Jhajjar allowed the complaint  vide impugned order dated 30.09.2015 and directed as under:-

“In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, it is observed that the respondent shall not recover the amount of Rs.1,77,596/- from the complainant raised on account of sundry charges from the complainant vide bill Ex.P-4.  However, the amount already deposited by the complainant, if any, towards the above said amount shall be adjusted by the respondent in the future billing of complainant.  The complainant had to file the present complaint due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and as such, has suffered mental agony and harassment, Hence, we further direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The complaint is disposed of accordingly.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved, therefrom, the appellant-O.P. 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 appellant argued that payment was not barred  under section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (In short “Act”) because as per opinion of Hon’ble 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.  It was also argued that the amount in question was rightly shown in the bills.  Impugned order is altogether against law and facts and be set aside.

8.      This argument is devoid of any force.  Recovery sought from the consumer is for the period 2005 to onwards, whereas the bill was issued in the month of February, 2015.

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 appellant did not lead any evidence to prove as to on what basis and since when the sum of 1,96,332/- was chargeable. This view is also fortified by the opinion of Hon’ble 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 demand after two years is barred by law.

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.”

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.7750/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

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