BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint no. 136/2018.
Date of instt. 07.05.2018.
Date of Decision: 25.02.2020
Suman Rani wife of Sham Anand R/o Gali No. 2, Ward No. 11, Behind the Happy Model School, Ratia, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad.
..Complainant.
Versus
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through Executive Engineer, Operation Division, DHBVN, Fatehabad District Fatehabad.
- Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division, City Ratia, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Ratia, District Fatehabad.
..Respondent/OP.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President. Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Argued by: Sh. Amit Wadhera, Advocate for complainant. Sh. Parveen Kumar Jora, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that the complainant is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account no. H43-MT1D-1734 installed at her residential house by the OPs. The complainant is making payment of the electricity bills regularly and as such the complainant is a consumer of the OPs as defined in the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. It is further submitted that in the month of December 2017, she received a bill no. 03018 dated 23.11.2017 payable on 12.12.2017 amounting of Rs.12,421/- and the same was on a higher side. Therefore, the complainant approached OPs and inquired about the above said wrong and illegal bill issued by the OPs and it was assured by the OPs that the said bill will be corrected very soon. However the complainant received another bill of Rs.23,952/- wherein no detail was provided by the OPs. The above said demand of the OPs was wrong and illegal and as such the same is liable to be set aside.
3. It is further submitted that the complainant again approached to the OPs for correction in bill but all in vain. Thereafter a red bill dated 25.01.2018 amounting to Rs.35,854/- was issued to the complainant. On enquiry it was said by the OPs that her previous bills were sent on average basis whereas the meter of the complainant has been installed outside her house and at a distance of about 150 feet from the house of complainant. Therefore, there is no fault on the part of the complainant if the meter reader of the OPs had not taken the meter reading correctly. Under the threat of disconnection the complainant was forced to make payment of Rs.27,810/- qua the bill in dispute.
4. It is further submitted that the electricity bills dated 23.11.2017 & 25.01.2018 are wrong, illegal and arbitrary and as such liable to be quashed and the complainant is entitled to recover the payment of Rs.27,810/- made by her to the OPs qua the bills in dispute.
5. It is further submitted that the above said act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in rendering service to her. The complainant has further prayed that the present complaint may be accepted and the OPs may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.27,810/- paid by her to the OPs alongwith interest and an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Hence, the present complaint.
6. On being served, the Ops appeared through its counsel and filed a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, estoppal & concealment of true and correct facts and estoppal etc. have been raised.
7. In reply on merits, it is submitted that a bill of Rs.12,421/- payable on 12.02.2017 was issued to the complainant in which a sum of Rs.3624/- was added as arrears of previous meter. It is further submitted that the old meter of the complainant was replaced on 24.07.2015 and in the old meter the reading was 8647 and the complainant had made a payment of only 8292 units. Therefore the difference of old meter reading of 355 units was chargeable from the consumer. It is further submitted that due to non-recording of MCO in computer the bill on average basis was sent to the consumer from September 2015 to November 2017. At the time of internal audit party found this mistake and Rs.19,575/- were imposed on the complainant for less billing and thereafter the account of the consumer was revised by sundry item no.967/163 and an amount of Rs.11,531/- was recoverable from the consumer. A total amount of Rs.8790/- was adjusted in the bill of the consumer. It is further submitted that the consumer is bound to pay the remaining bill to the Nigam as the amount is all the energy consumed by the consumer and the answering OPs ar competent to recover the same. Therfore there is no deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to the complainant and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Ex. CW-1/A and the documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand learned counsel for the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Anand Parkash, SDO Operation as Annexure RW-1/A and documents as Annexure 1 to Annexure 3 and closed the evidence of the Ops.
8. We have duly heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents placed on record.
9. It is the case of the complainant that the electricity bill dated 23.11.2017 for an amount of Rs.12,421/- and another bill of Rs.23,952/- and the bill dated 25.01.2018 amount of Rs.35,854/- are wrong, illegal and as such the said bills are liable to be withdrawn and the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.27,810/- paid by him to the OPs on account of the above said bills. On the other hand, it is the case of the OPs that the old meter of the complainant was replaced on 24.07.2015 and the final reading in the old meter was 8647 and the complainant had made a payment of only 8292 units. Therefore the difference of old meter reading of 355 units amounting to Rs.3624/- was included in the bill payable on 12.12.2017. It is further the case of the OPs that due to non recording of MCO in the computer average bills were sent to the complainant from September 2015 to November 2017 and when the mistake was found by the audit party then an amount of Rs.19575/- were imposed on the consumer vide bill payable on 12.02.2018. Therefore the above said amount is regarding the energy consumer by the complainant and there is no deficiency on the part of OPs.
10. It is admitted by the OPs in their written statement that the old meter was replaced on 24.07.2015 and the arrears of the energy which was consumed by the complainant before 24.07.2015 was included in the bill payable on 12.12.2017. From the above, it is well established that the electricity bill wherein an amount of Rs.3624/- which pertain to the period prior to 24.07.2015 was issued to the complainant after a lapse of 2 years i.e. in the bill of 12.12.2017. Therefore the recovery sought by the OPs from the complainant after a period of 2 years is not justified in view of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003 which reads as under:-
“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.”
Therefore, an amount of Rs.3624/-sought by the OPs from the complainant vide electricity bill dated 12.12.2017 is in violation of Section 56(2) of the electricity Act.
11. As per the instructions and guidelines of the Department of OPs the monthly bill is to be issued to the consumer on the basis of actual meter reading. However in the present case as admitted by the OPs, the electricity bill for the period from September 2015 to November 2017 was issued to the complainant on average basis. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the above said act of the OPs by not issuing the electricity bill on the basis of actual meter reading amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.3624/- only included in the electricity bill dated 12.12.2017 to the complainant and the another relief for the Rs.27,810/- is declined being energy consumed charges. The Ops are further directed for making a payment of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant as compensation and litigation charges on account of deficiency on in rendering service to the complainant. The present order be complied with within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order otherwise the amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 8% per annum for the default period. A copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of cost as provided in the rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum: Dt. 25.02.2020
(Jasvinder Singh) (Raghbir Singh) Member President DCDRF, Fatehabad.
