BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint no.231/2016.
Date of instt.05.09.2016.
Date of Decision:12.10.2017.
Beera Son of Sant Ram, resident of village Damkora, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad.
..Complainant.
Versus
1.Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Tohana District Fatehabad.
2.Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation Sub-Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Sub-Urban, Tohana, District Fatehabad
..Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.
Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present : Sh.Sant Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Dushyant Gera, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant with the averments that a domestic electric connection bearing Account No.MDID-0722A installed at village Damkora, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad is in the name of the complainant and the complainant has been using the above said electric connection and also has been making the payments of all the electricity bills regularly and as such the complainant is the consumer of the OPs as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . It is further submitted that the OPs issued electricity bill payable on 22.08.2016 to the complainant and demanded a sum of Rs.1,20,420/- out of which an amount of Rs.1.19,087/- is as sundry charges. The above said demand of the OPs is wrong, against law, null and void and arbitrary, against the principle of natural justice, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant is not liable to make any payment of the above said bill to the OPs on the following grounds:-
(a) that the complainant has never been found indulging in theft of energy and the complainant has never been found consuming electricity dishonestly and the complainant never consumed, used or abstracted and even never attempted to use or consume or abstract the electricity dishonestly and the meter of the complainant’s factory never remained dead, slow and defective;
(b) that it is the duty of the respondents Nigam to keep the meter correct and they cannot charge any amount on the basis of dead, slow and defective meter because only Chief Electrical Inspector can charge any amount on the basis of slow, dead or defective meter;
(c) that the complainant is living in the village and the complainant is having a very small house and the bimonthly bill of the complainant cannot come more than Rs.300-400 per month;
(d) that no opportunity of being heard has been given before demanding the amount of Rs.1,19,087.75 and even no provisional assessment notice has been given to the complainant u/s 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 and due to this, the complainant has been deprived of his valuable right to file the objections and to file the appeal before the appellate authority;
(e) that the complainant has come to know from the reliable sources that the said amount has been pointed out by the audit party of respondents Nigam, whereas no notice or opportunity of being heard has been given before issuing the impugned bill to the complainant;
(f) that the complainant has never tempered with the meter or its seal and meter of the complainant was working OK. Even otherwise to keep and maintain correct meter is the responsibility of the respondents Nigam;
(g) that the meter of the complainant has not been tested from any lab and no notice has been given to the complainant in this respect;
(h) that no checking has been carried out in the presence of the complainant or its authorized representative;
(i) that no parallel meter has been installed to check and verify the working of the meter of the complainant;
(j) that the official who have alleged to be checked the meter and declared it slow, were not authorized to do so;
(k) that no notice has been given to the complainant before the alleged checking done by the respondents Nigam as mentioned in the impugned notice. Moreover no date has been mentioned regarding any checking in the impugned notice;
2. It is further averred that OPs are bent upon to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant and to recover the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,19,087/- from the complainant forcibly and illegally. The complainant has been repeatedly asking the OPs to treat the above said bill payable on 22.08.2016 as null and void and to restrain from effecting the recovery of the amount of Rs.1,19,087/-. However the OPs have flatly refused to accede the request of the complainant and threatened to affect the recovery of above said amount from the complainant. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs in rendering service to the complainant and as such the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/- from the OPs on account of mental agony, harassment and humiliation undergone by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice the OPs appeared and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections i.e. that the complaint filed by the complainant is wrong, against the law and facts; that the complainant has no cause of action for filing the present complaint; that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint; that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum, have been raised. In reply on merits, it is submitted that now-a-days the electricity bill issued to the consumers are computer generated. Till December, 2014, the complainant was issued bill on the basis of actual consumption recorded in the meter of the complainant. However from February 2015 to February 2016 the complainant was issued the electricity bill showing lesser consumption of the units consumed by the complainant. It is further submitted that on 31.03.2016 the meter of the complainant was checked by H.E.S.L. Staff and the meter of the complainant was found in working condition and therefore the complainant was given notice vide letter dated 25.03.2016 for short assessment for Rs.1,17,406/-. On the basis of report of H.E.S.L. Staff the sundry item was prepared and a bill for a sum of Rs.1,11,903/- was issued to the complainant. It is further averred that the above said bill has been issued on the basis of consumption of electricity recorded in the meter of the complainant and there is no illegality in the same. It is further submitted that the demand of the OPs is perfectly in order and sustainable in the eyes of law. Lastly the dismissal of the present complaint has been prayed by the OPs.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit as Annexure C1 wherein he has affirmed the averments made in the complaint. The complainant also produced document as annexure C2 i.e. electricity bill for the month of July 2016 and closed the evidence. On the other hand Sh.Sanjay Singla, S.D.O. Operation, Tohana submitted his affidavit on behalf of OPs. The OPs in evidence also tendered documents as Annexure R1 to Annexure R6 and closed the evidence.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant in his arguments reiterated the averments made in the complaint and further contended that before demanding the amount of Rs.1,19,087/- as sundry charges vide electricity bill payable on 22.08.2016 the OPs did not afford an opportunity of hearing to the complainant and even no provisional assessment notice was issued under Section 126 of Electricity Act of 2003 and on account of this the complainant was deprived of the valuable right of filing objections and to file an appeal before the appellate authority. Moreover no details of the impugned amount of Rs.1,19,087/- was given to the complainant. It is also contended that it is the duty of the Nigam to keep the meter correct and the OPs cannot charge any amount on the basis of slow or defective meter. The learned counsel further contended that the above said demand of Rs.1,19,087/- as sundry charges is against law, null and void, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and as such the same is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied upon the judgment cited as 2010(2) RCR Civil 605 (Punjab and Haryana High Court), 2011(1) Civil Court cases 001 (Supreme Court) and 2002(1) CLT page 35 (Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission).
6. The learned counsel for the OPs vehemently rebutted the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant and further contended that the demand of Rs.1,19,087/- payable on 22.08.2016 from the complainant was perfectly in accordance with the provisions of Electricity Act and sustainable in the eyes of law. The bill in dispute has been issued to the complainant on the basis of consumption of electricity recorded in the meter of the complainant and there is no illegality in the same. Moreover a notice dated 25.03.2016 was issued to the complainant wherein he was given an opportunity of filing objections within 15 days. Therefore the action of the OPs is perfectly in accordance with law and the present complaint is liable to be set aside.
7. We have duly considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parities and have carefully examined the documents placed on record of the case file. It is the case of the complainant that he has been making payment of electricity bills regularly and he was never found indulged in theft of energy and never found consuming of electricity dishonestly and the meter of the complainant was never found dead, slow or defective. However a bill including Rs.1,19,087/- as sundry charges has been sent illegally to the complainant by the OPs and before demanding the above-said amount no opportunity of being heard was given to the complainant, no provisional assessment notice was given under Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 and no details of the impugned amount was furnished to the complainant. Therefore the action of the OPs is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
8. We are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality on the part of OPs in sending the impugned bill i.e. Annexure C-2 to the complainant. From perusal of the documents i.e. Annexure R-6 and R-7 placed on the file it is evident that the bill has been issued on the basis of consumption of electricity recorded in the meter of the complainant. The amount included in the bill is not any penalty imposed upon the complainant. Therefore there was no requirement of affording of opportunity of personal hearing or issuance of provisional assessment notice to the complaint under Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003. Moreover in the present case a notice dated 25.03.2016 Annexure R-5 for Short Assessment was issued to the complainant vide which he was given opportunity of filing objections, within 15 days. It is also pertinent to mention here that the meter in question was examined in the M & T Lab by a joint team of expert on 23.02.2017 and the meter was found in permissible limits. The Joint Checking Report is Annexure R-3. The complainant was given proper notices for remaining present at the time of checking.
9. It is a settled proposition of law that the Electricity Board has power to recover the charges for the energy consumed by the consumer and the consumer is duty bound to pay the sum due towards the electricity consumed. There is no deficiency of service on the part of Electricity Board in making supplementary demand for escaped billing. Reliance is placed on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as M/s Swastic Industries Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and cited as 1997 AIR (SC) 1101.
The facts of the cases relied upon by the counsel for the complainant, are different and distinguishable from the facts of the present case and as such these decisions are not applicable in the present case.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is without any merits and as such the same is hereby dismissed. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 12.10.2017.
(Raghbir Singh)
President
(Ansuya Bishnoi) (R.S.Panghal) District Consumer Disputes
Member Member Redressal Forum,Fatehabad
