Haryana

Jind

CC/15/106

Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL Jind - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 103 of 2015
                            Date of institution:-6.8.2015
                            Date of decision:-15.6.2016
Suresh Kumar s/o Sh. Harkesh Saini r/o Ajmer Basti Bhiwani road Jind, Tehsil and District Jind.

                                       ...Complainant.
Versus
Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban Sub Division No.2, D.H.B.V.N, Jind.
D.H.B.V.N. through Executive Engineer (OP) Divn. Jind, Tehsil and District Jind. 
                                          …Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.    
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
            
Present:-    Sh.Suresh Kumar complainant in person. 
        Sh. Mohit Sharma Adv.for opposite parties. 
            
Order:-
        In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that complainant is  consumer of the opposite parties  vide electricity account No. 1141503UA and paying the energy bills regularly. The previous bill  dated 11.5.2015 amounting to Rs.3199/-  was paid by the complainant 
            Suresh Kumar Vs. DHBVN etc.
                    …2…
in time. The complainant received a bill dated 20.7.2015 amounting to Rs.37,429/- which is illegal being the same very excessive and the  consumed units 228  are shown  to be charges in the current bill. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 to issue the correct and genuine bill as per consumption charges. The opposite party No.1 stated that your brother have committed theft of energy and opposite parties have removed his electricity meter and complainant is responsible to pay the amount of bill. The brother of the complainant is living separate from him in a separate house who is consuming the energy through his own  another meter. The opposite parties have sent the excessive and illegal bill to him and threatened that if this bill is not paid then power supply of his house will be disconnected and meter will be removed. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed not to disconnect the power supply and not to remove the electricity meter from the house of complainant and not to recover the alleged amount of Rs.37,429/- except the consumption charges. It is further directed to pay a sum of
Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 
2.      Pursuant to notice, the opposite parties have appeared and filed the written reply agitating that the complainant has got no  locus standi  to file the present complaint and the complainant has not come with clean hands before this Forum and has suppressed the true and material facts. On merits, it is contended that the premises of the 
            Suresh Kumar Vs. DHBVN etc.
                    …3…
complainant was checked  and found that meter A/C No.AB11-1023 installed in the name of Sh. Suresh Kumar s/o Sh. Harkesh Dutt Ajmer Basti Bhiwani road, Jind and already meter A/C No.AB11-0101 installed in the name of Sh. Harkesh dutt and meter already PDCO effected and defaulting amount standing Rs.36,338/-. The opposite parties had transferred the due amount in the complainant electricity account No. AB11-1023 on the account of defaulting consumer by adhering to the instruction No.7.3 of the Sales Manual 2013 of the Nigam which was outstanding against his father in the same premises. Thereafter,  the opposite parties have disconnected the electricity connection due to non-payment of energy bill.  The complainant had obtained electricity connection vide A/C No.AB11-1023 for domestic purpose after disconnection  of electricity connection of his father in the same premises. The opposite parties have rightly debited the amount of Rs.36,338/- in the complainant’s electricity account on the account of outstanding due against his father’s electricity account in the same premises. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with cost  is prayed for.  
3.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copies of electricity bill Ex. C-2 and Ex. C-3, copy of document Ex. C-4 and  copies of letter dated 17.11.2011 Ex. C-5 and Ex. C-6and  closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the copy of checking report Annexure OP-1 and copy of document Annexure OP-2 and closed the evidence. 
            Suresh Kumar Vs. DHBVN etc.
                    …4…
4.            We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the document  bill No.133439857230 dated 20.7.2015 Ex. C-3  opposite parties have demanded a sum of Rs.36,338/- from the complainant on account of defaulting amount of his father in the same premises. As such, the counsel for complainant has argued that  opposite parties have arbitrarily levied the amount of Rs.36,338/- in electricity account of complainant.  
                        On the other hand, counsel for  opposite parties has argued that  in this premises an electricity connection bearing No. AB11-0101 was installed in the name of Sh. Harkesh Dutt the father of complainant but this connection was used by Ram Niwas brother of the complainant and  the said connection was PDCO and defaulting amount of Rs.36,338/- was outstanding on this premises. The opposite parties have transferred  the due amount in the account of complainant as per instruction No.7.3  of Sales Manual 2013 of the Nigam and thus the bill sent to the complaint was correct  one and complainant is liable to pay the same.
5.                     During the course of arguments the opposite parties have filed  detail of account No. AB11-0101 of  Sh. Harkesh  Dutt. At the very outset, from the perusal of  detail of  account bearing No. AB11-0101  supplied by the opposite parties, it reveals that an amount of Rs.36,338/- has been made outstanding against the electricity account  No. AB11-0101of Sh. Harkesh Dutt father of the complainant but this connection was used by Ram Niwas brother of the complainant for the period from November, 2011 to December, 2012. From the perusal of this document, it  clearly shows that  Rs.21,414/- was levied  by the opposite parties in November, 2011 through sundry No.76/085 and non-depositing 
            Suresh Kumar Vs. DHBVN etc.
                    …5…
of the above said amount PDCO was effected in  July, 2012 and as such this amount is outstanding against the  aforesaid electricity connection from November, 2012. Thus without commenting further aspect of the case, we have come to the conclusion that the said demand of the  opposite parties is clear cut violation of Section 56(2) of  the Electricity Act which says as under:-
                                                “56. Disconnection of supply in default of payment.
                                               (2)       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 arrears of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.”
                        As such, the  opposite parties have adopted unfair trade practice by demanding a sum of Rs.36,338/- vide bill No.133439857230 dated 20.7.2015  under the grab of sundry charges on the basis of defaulting amount of same premises and thus we are of the view that the aforesaid amount has been levied by the Ops arbitrarily. Further, our Hon’ble State Commission (Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula)  has held in one similar case titled as Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rajji Bai reported in 2009(1) CLT Pg. 526 that “Electricity Act, 2003, Section 56-Sales Circular No.27/96-Electricity bill-Sundry Charges-Demand made by Ops on the basis of objection raised by the Audit Party-Ops were duty bound to 
            Suresh Kumar Vs. DHBVN etc.
                    …6…
supply the necessary details of the audit report and to give a proper notice in terms of the Sales Circular which it has not complied with-Demand also barred in view of Section 56 of the Act, 2003-Order of the District Forum setting aside the demand upheld”.
           Apart this the Nigam is deficient to perform his duty because if  any consumer applied for new connection then it is the mandatory duty of the official of the Nigam to verify that whether any defaulting amount is outstanding against the premises or not? . In the present case the Nigam is at fault not to follow the instructions of the Nigam. They have debited amount of Rs.36,338/- after period spent of two years which was due in the year 2012 and first time have added the above said amount of complainant in the energy bill dated 20.7.2015, so opposite parties cannot charge the time barred amount from the complainant.  Therefore, in view of the facts discussed above, we have no hesitation in holding that opposite parties have  not only committed unfair trade practice with the complainant rather they are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-
Not to charge  amounting to Rs.36,338/- as demanded vide bill No.133439857230 dated 20.7.2015 
Also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- to the complainant on account of litigation expenses.
 
                    The aforesaid directions must be complied with by the opposite parties within the stipulated period otherwise the complainant shall be entitled to get the 

            Suresh Kumar Vs. DHBVN etc.
                    …7…
said order enforced under due provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of this order be sent to the parties  as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 15.6.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           Suresh Kumar Vs. DHBVN etc.
                    
Present:-    Sh.Suresh Kumar complainant in person. 
        Sh. Mohit Sharma Adv.for opposite parties. 
            
                Arguments heard.  To come up on  15.6.2016 for orders.

                                        President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           9.6.2016

Present:-    Sh. K.S. Gill Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. Anil Sheokand Adv.for opposite parties. 
            
                Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is partly allowed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

                                                                                               President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           15.6.2016