BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.:113 of 2016.
Date of Instt.: 12.04.2016.
Date of Decision: 20.03.2017
Shree Ram son of Ganga Ram resident of village Kharaiti Khera Tehsil & Fatehabad.
Complainant.
Versus
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Executive Engineer, Operation Division.
- Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division, Sub Urban Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad 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.P.K.Tandi, Adv. for the complainant.
Sh.Dushyant Gera, Adv. for the opposite parties.
ORDER:
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he is a consumer of OPs having an electric connection bearing account No.KK-1D/0381-A installed at village Kharaiti Khera. He has been making the payment of electricity bills regularly and nothing is due towards him. The OPs have issued a bill to the complainant for a sum of Rs.5236/- payable on 18.03.2016 by showing an amount of Rs.5089.27/- as sundry charges, which is wrong, against law and facts, without giving any notice and without providing any detail to him. It has been further averred that the complainant had visited the Ops and came to know that the bill in question has been issued on account of some other consumer Raj Kumar son of Zile Singh because the complainant had been his surety. It has been further averred that the OPs had got recovered Rs.2500/- on 17.02.2016 from the complainant under the threat of disconnection of electricity connection. The OPs have been repeatedly requested to treat the impugned bill as null and void but in vain as the OPs have flatly refused to do so. There is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and thus, he is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/- from the OPs 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, Annexure C2/A, Annexure C2/B, Annexure C2/C, Annexure C2/D and Annexure C3.
3. The OPs appeared and filed their joint reply contesting the complaint of the complainant by taking several preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability and suppression of material facts from this Forum. It has been further submitted that the complainant had given guarantee of Raj Kumar son of Zile Singh resident of village Kharaiti Khera at the time of obtaining electricity connection and said Raj Kumar had committed default in making the payment of outstanding amount, therefore, the complainant is liable to pay the said amount. It has been further submitted that due to non-payment electricity bills connection of said Raj Kumar was disconnected and the defaulted amount had been added in the bill of the complainant as sundry charges being guarantor. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and no threat of disconnection of electricity connection has been given to the complainant. Other pleas raised in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavit of Sh.J.R.Solra, SDO as Annexure R1 and copy of affidavit of complainant as guarantor as Annexure R2.
4. Heard. We have examined the pleadings and documents of the parties very carefully.
5. It is not disputed that the complainant was guarantor of said Raj Kumar as the complainant had given affidavit/guarantee (Annexure R2) at the time of obtaining electricity connection by said Raj Kumar. It is also not disputed that the OPs had issued bill to the tune of Rs.5236/- payable on 18.03.2016 (Ex.C1) wherein an amount of Rs.5072/- has been shown as sundry charges. It is settled principle of law that he who seeks equity must do equity with others but in the present case the OPs have not done so as on one hand they wished to charge Rs.5072/- being sundry charges (defaulted amount by said Raj Kumar) from complainant and on the other hand the OPs have failed to show on the case file as to what action they have taken for recovery of the amount shown in the bill issued to the complainant against the defaulter (Raj Kumar). The complainant has placed on file Annexure C2/A, Annexure C2/B, Annexure C2/C and Annexure C2/D written to OPs whereby one Rakesh Kumar had sought information under RTI under which rule the OPs can add the defaulted amount into the bill of guarantor and whether any prior notice was necessary or not. There is nothing on the file from which it could be gathered that the sought information was given to the applicant and the OPs have also failed to place on file any notice issued to the complainant regarding adding/recovery of the defaulted amount in the account of the complainant. The OPs have also failed to show before this Forum under which rule and norms they wished to charge the said amount from the complainant. Had the Nigam wanted to recover the defaulted amount from the defaulter and its guarantor then it should have follow the proper procedure by providing ample opportunity to the consumer/guarantor but in the present case it has not done so. From the above, it is clear that the OPs had violated the principles of natural justice; therefore, adding of defaulted amount by said Raj Kumar in the account of complainant without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to him 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 act and conduct of the OPs towards complaint is irresponsible and they cannot recover the amount of Rs.5072/- as sundry charges being levied illegally and wrongly. Hence, the demand of Rs.5072/- on account of sundry charges is set aside. Since the complainant has deposited Rs.2500/-, therefore, the OPs are directed to refund the amount in question alongwith interest @ 6 % per annum to the complainant from the date of depositing of said amount till its realization. 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:20.03.2017
(Raghbir Singh)
President,
(Ansuya Bishnoi) Distt.Consumer Disputes
Member, Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
