BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.:106 of 2016.
Date of Instt.: 07.04.2016.
Date of Decision: 10.01.2017
Kuldeep Singh aged 25 years son of Vijay Singh resident of Dhani Gopal, Tehsil & Fatehabad.
Complainant.
Versus
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through Executive Engineer, Operation Division, DHBVN, Tohana District Fatehabad.
- Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Bhuna Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
BEFORE: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Argued by: Sh.D.P.Jakhal, Adv. for the complainant.
Sh. Anil Solra, Adv. for the opposite parties.
ORDER:
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties with the averments that he is a consumer of the OPs having a domestic electric connection bearing account No.DG-1D-0611-A installed at village Dhani Gopal. The opposite parties have issued a bill to the complainant for a sum of Rs.10030/- payable on 19.06.2015 by showing an amount of Rs.8564 as sundry charges, which is wrong, against law and facts, without providing any detail and opportunity of being heard, against the principles of natural justice, arbitrary, null and void and is liable to be set aside. It has been further averred that in the beginning of year 2012 the meter of the complainant was not working properly and was not recording actual consumption, therefore, he had moved an application dated 16.04.2012 to OP No.2 but no action was taken despite the fact that it was the duty of the Nigam to keep the meter correct. The opposite parties have been repeatedly requested to treat the impugned bill as null and void but in vain as the OPs have not only flatly refused to do so rather they have also started extending threats to the complainant to immediately effect the recovery of the said amount from the complainant and to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant in case of non-payment of the above said amount. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thus, he is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/- from the opposite parties on account of mental agony and harassment. Hence, this complaint. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A and documents as Ex.C1 to Ex.C3.
3. The OPs appeared and filed their joint reply contesting the complaint of the complainant on various grounds. It has been submitted that on 19.04.2015 during inspection the connected load of the electricity was found as 2.265 KW despite the fact that the applied load was 0.400 KW. Since there was excess load, therefore, the sundry had been prepared as per rules and the electricity bill to the tune of Rs.10030/- (Rs.1466/- as consumption charges & Rs.8564/- as sundry charges) was demanded from the complaint. It has been further averred that the Ops had also sent a notice bearing memo No.619 dated 27.04.2015 to the complainant but despite that he had not made the demanded amount.
Other pleas of the complaint have been controverted. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Lastly, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the OPs have tendered affidavit of Dalbir Singh, SDO as Ex.RW1/A, affidavit of Wazir Singh as Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.
4. Heard. We have examined the pleadings and documents of the parties very carefully.
5. It is not disputed that on dated 19.04.2015 house of the complainant was inspected by the officials of the Nigam. In the checking report LL-1 it has been mentioned that Checking done in the presence of Dinesh, cousin brother of Kuldeep; that during checking supply not available but according bill show D-code and that Action may be taken as per Nigam instruction.
6. The complainant has approached to this Forum with a plea that the bill demanding Rs.10030/- is wrong and illegal and the said demand has been made without giving any notice and affording of opportunity of personal hearing to him. On the other hand, the OPs have come with the plea that the bill to the tune of Rs.10030/- wherein an amount of Rs.8564/- has been shown as sundry charges keeping in view the instructions of the Nigam and regarding this notice bearing memo No.619 dated 27.04.2015 was also sent to the complainant to make the payment of sundry within a period of 15 days.
7. Now the important question for adjudication by this Forum is as to whether the opposite parties have rightly and correctly sent the impugned bill to the complainant to recover the demanded amount. In our opinion the action of the opposite qua demanding of Rs.8564/- without giving any notice to the complainant is illegal. If the opposite were to recover the demanded amount to the tune of Rs.8564/- from the complainant as sundry charges and they wanted to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant then, they should have served a notice to the complainant affording him an opportunity of being heard. It could have been possible that the complainant had deposited the defaulting amount on receipt of a notice from the opposite. Even under the law, it is mandatory for the opposite parties to issue a notice to the consumer before levied any penalty/sundry charges. Though the opposite have placed on file notice bearing no.619 dated 27.04.2019 and pleaded that same had been sent to the complainant but there is nothing on file to show that on which mode the same was sent to the complainant and it also does not show that he had been given sufficient opportunity of personal hearing before levying any penalty/sundry charges rather it depicts that the Nigam at its own had assessed Rs.8564/- as sundry charges on account of excess load. The OPs have also failed to explain on the case file that all the proceedings so done after inspection of the house of the complainant were communicated to the complainant. From the above, it is clear that the OPs had violated the principles of natural justice; therefore, the assessment of sundry charges without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the complainant is wrong and illegal. On this point, reliance can be taken from case law titled as M/s Tirupati Industries Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others Vol.CXXV-(2000-2) The Punjab Law Reporter page 357 wherein Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has held that The rule of hearing and the rule of fairness in State action which form part of the concept of rule of law imposes an obligation on the State and its agencies/instrumentalities to give notice and opportunity of hearing and also to disclose reason for their actions which may adversely affect the rights of a person or which may visit such person with evil consequences. The rule that no man can be condemned unheard has been treated as an integral part of the concept of rule of law which permeates the scheme of our constitution. The thin line of distinction between purely administrative actions and quasi judicial actions has been completely obliterated by the judicial verdicts. More than 30 years ago, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors., A.I.R, 1967 S.C. 1269 ruled that even administrative decisions may be invalidated on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Some of the observations made in that action are extracted below:
"An order by the State to the prejudice of a person in derogation of his vested rights may be made only in accordance with the basic rules of justice and fair play. The deciding authority, it is true, is not in the position of judge called upon to decide an action between contesting parties, and strict compliance with the forms of judicial procedure may not be insisted upon, he is, however, under a duty to give the person against whom an enquiry is held an opportunity to set up his version or defence and an opportunity to correct or to controvert any evidence in the possession of the authority which is sought to be relied upon to his prejudice. For that purpose the person against whom an enquiry is held must be informed of the case he is called upon to meet, and the evidence in support thereof. The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set up that every citizen is protected against exercise for arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would, therefore, arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed; it need not be shown to be super-added. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case.... It is true that the order is administrative in character, but even an administrative order which involves civil consequences, as already stated, must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice after informing the first respondent of the case of the State, the evidence in support thereof and after giving an opportunity to the first respondent of being heard and meeting or explaining the evidence. No such steps were admittedly taken, the High Court was, in our judgment, right in setting aside the order of the State."
In the present case the work and conduct of the OPs towards complaint is irresponsible and they cannot recover the amount of Rs.8564/- as sundry charges being levied illegally and wrongly. Hence, the demand of Rs.8564/- on account of sundry charges is set aside. Though the OPs have been given a liberty to decide the case of the complaint afresh by giving notice and an opportunity of personal hearing to him. Since during the proceedings of this complaint the connection of the complainant was disconnected and was restored vide order dated 03.05.2016 on depositing of 50 % of the total amount i.e. Rs.10,030/- by the complinant, thereore, the OPs are directed to refund the amount after deducting the amount of consumption of electricity charges to the complainan. The order dated 03.05.2016 stands vacated and the present complaint stands disposed of.
The compliance of this order be made within a period of one month. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:10.01.2017
(Raghbir Singh)
President,
(Ansuya Bishnoi) Distt.Consumer Disputes
Member, Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
