Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/1/2022

M/s Godara Stone Crusher - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

Manveer Mehla

03 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI

                                                                      Complaint No.:01 of 2022                                                                                   Date of Institution: 03.01.2022                                                                                       Date of Order:  03.12.2024     

M/s Godara  Stone Crusher, Gadhi Khudana though its proprietor Patram Singh.

                                                                             ....Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran  Nigam having its Head Office at Vidhyut Nagar, hisar though its managing director.
2. The  Executive  Engineer, “OP” Division, DHBVN, Charkhi Dadri.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division DHBVN, Jhojhu Kalan.                                                                      ....Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

Sitting:        Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President,

                   (Proceeded under Section 64 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Present:       Sh. Manveer Mehla, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Sube Singh, Advocate for OPs.

                       

ORDER

1.           The brief facts of the case are that the complainant having the electric connection from the opposite party having account no.B-34-MIHT-1 and he is making payments of the electric bills regularly and nothing   was  due  towards the complainant in respect of aforesaid electricity connection. Complainant averred that opposite party has no any right or title against the factual position  issued a bill in respect of above said electricity meter from the month of August 2016 amounting Rs.7,57,227/- to the complainant  alongwith sundry amount of Rs.2,25,000/- and arrear of Rs.3,51,229/- . The opposite party added Rs. 2,25,000/- and Rs. 3,51,229/- in that bill without any right or title whereas the electricity connection was cut from 22.01.2016 and  Crusher was also shut till 08.07.2016. Complainant further averred that before this bill opposite party issued wrong bill in June,2016 amounting to Rs. Rs.13,56,959/- and  after  receiving the said bill complainant  deposited Rs.11,00,000/- as final settlement by SDO and after depositing of that bill nothing was due against  the complainant. Complainant submitted that after receiving the above said impugned bill, the complainant moved an  application  to the opposite  party and requested them to correct bill and correct MMC  Charges  which are  charged on  higher  side in  question and after seeing the  b ill in  question  and previous bill. The opposite party putting of the matter on one pretext or the other but till today they have not corrected the bill in question on reading basis. The complainant approached many times to the OPs but all in vain. In this way, due to aforesaid malafide and Negligent Act of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss. Hence, this present complaint.
2.           In reply to the notice of the complaint, the OPs have  filed  the written statement  raising objections pertaining to cause  of action, tutorial jurisdiction, maintainability etc.  and also contended that the connection was  issued to the complainant on Self  Execution Scheme but after going through Audit report of the OPs audited by the Department whereby it was found  that  the  complainant is running  the commercial connection and have  taken under Scheme of Self Execution Scheme which is not permitted to complainant being running a stone crusher. It is further contended by the OPs that  the during checking of the account  of the complainant, it has  come to know that  the connection  of the complainant  has  already been disconnected in the month of July, 2014 due to non-payment of defaulting amount of Rs.187568/254398/- as per  ledger, After that, the complainant  has  applied for new connection vide A & A  No.22048/NT dated 17.03.2015 and new connection  was released in favour of the complainant  vide SCO No.27/1281 dated  01.04.2015 in compliance of memo N0.37/SUL dated 30.03.2015 circulated by Executive Engineer (OP) and at  the time of issuing new connection to the complainant, he was directed to got deposit SCC as  per  S/C No.13/2002, but that amount was not got deposited by the complainant with the remarks that work was executed under  self execution  scheme. Moreover, neither any estimate was framed nor any amount of supervision charges at the rate of Rs.1.5% of estimated cost was got deposited by the complainant and also no any charges of dismantlement of service line was deposited. Hence, the case of complainant does not fall under S.E.S., so the charges of S.C.C. @ Rs.750/- per KVA of sanctioned load i.e. (300 X 750 =2,25,000/-) is liable to be paid by the complainant. It is  also pertinent to mention here that  only processing charges of Rs. 6750/- was got deposited by the complainant and Rs. 2,25,000/- which has been charged in the bill of the complainant as  sundry charges, is due towards the complainant and  the complainant is liable to make the payment of due electricity amount to the Nigam. It is alleged that the OPs have wrongly, without any right or title issued the bill of month August, 2016 amounting to Rs. 7,57,227/-. However, the estimate amount, supervision charges at rate of Rs. 1.5% to estimated cost and charges of dismantlement of service line was not deposited by the complainant at the time of releasing new connection in his favour, so the charges of S.C.C. @ Rs.750/- per KVA of sanctioned load i.e. (300 X 750=2,25,000/-) is liable to be paid by the complainant and the same has been charged in the bill of the complainant as sundry charges.   It is further alleged that at the time of releasing new connection, charges S.C.C. @750/- per KVA of sanctioned load i.e. (300 X 750 = 2,25,000/-) was remained to be charged. It is further alleged that complainant never moved any application nor made any request to correct the bill. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3.           Both the parties in support of their respective averments tendered in documentary evidence alongwith their respective affidavits and adduced certain documents.  Reference of relevant record shall be given in this order. 
4.           I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file thoroughly and after hearing the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the convinced view that the present complaint has merit and the same deserves acceptance for the reasons mentioned hereinafter.
5.           After  going through the record it found that in this case only dispute regarding  bill Ex.C9  for levelling  sundry charges for Rs.2,25,000/- and  it was contended  by the OPs by Ex.R3 that these sundry charges were  imposed due to availing the self execution  scheme because as per the business of the complainant  he has applied for self execution scheme but although he was not entitled for the self execution  scheme due to Commercial business  and estimate  was  framed by the OPs department when conducted the  audit vide  Ex.R3 and the penalty imposed  on the complainant  shown in the electricity bill as  a sundry charges of Rs. 2,25,000/-. It is very surprised in this case that if the complainant was not entitled for the self execution scheme being commercial entity then how the connection was issued by the OPs under Self Execution Scheme, which shows the connivance of the officials of the OPs.  As far concerned of the jurisdiction of this Commission the complainant cited the judgment decided by Supreme Court in case title as Rohit Chaudhary Vs. M/s Vipul Ltd., Civil Appeal No.5858/2015 decided on 06.09.2023. In which the interpretation of the word and expression of commercial purpose was described thoroughly and held that if a  person not reselling the  goods  cannot debar from approaching the Consumer Court. The OPs also failed to prove on record by placing any documents that they have ever denied for the Self Execution Scheme Connection to the complainant or issued any letter to him to adopt another scheme or get new connection except Self Execution Scheme if official of the OPs themselves issued the connection under the Self Execution Scheme then they cannot be allowed to recover the amount for their own carelessness as well as abandoning duty at work through sundry charges from the complainant. Hence, I am of the view that there is gross negligence on the part of the OPs.
6.           In the light of above mentioned facts and circumstances, the complaint is partly allowed with following directions: -

1. To wave of the sundry charges of Rs.2,25,000/-. However, OPs shall have at liberty to recover the said amount from erring officials who have issued the connection under Self Execution Scheme for Commercial entity.
2. To pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) as litigation expenses.
3. To pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) for mental harassment and agony.

                   The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which further interest @12% will be paid by the OPs on all above amount mentioned in the clause no. (i) to (iii) for the delayed period. 

7.                If the order of this Commission is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to file execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the defaulting party will be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which shall not less than one month, but which may extend to three years or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees, but which may extend to Rs. one lac or with both. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rules and this order be promptly uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.