BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 291 of 2017
Date of Institution : 6.11.2017
Date of Decision : 21.3.2018
Parminder Kaur wife of Balwinder Singh, D/o Gurditta Singh, resident of Village Vaidwala, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
1. The Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division, Sub Urban Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
2. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Managing Director/ Authorized person at Panchkula.
3.Executive Engineer/ D.G.M. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Surjit Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sachin Nanda, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties in respect of the electricity connection No. JS-14/2567 which is installed in the residential house of complainant situated at village Vaidwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The complainant has been paying the electricity bills regularly to the ops and he is not the defaulter of the Nigam in any manner. It is further averred that above said connect ion of complainant was issued on the basis of BPL by the Govt. of Haryana to the poor persons and previously the amount of bill was recovered on the minimum basis but later on the ops started to recover the bill on the unit basis since 1.5.2016 which were paid by the complainant regularly without any gap. Now the op no.1 has issued a bill No.01015 dated 16.10.2017 wrongly and illegally in respect of above said connection of the complainant for an amount of Rs.39180/- which was payable on 30.10.2017 showing the consumption of electricity as 244 units. On receipt of this bill, the complainant felt great shock to see this heavy amount of bill as previously there was nothing due against the complainant. That the complainant immediately approached to the ops and requested to correct the bill but op no.1 did not hear the complainant rather threatened to pay the said amount of the bill otherwise her connection will be disconnected. That the complainant is a poor person and was unable to pay the alleged amount of bill, hence about a month ago the ops have disconnect ed the electricity connection of the complainant without any notice or information to the complainant. That the impugned bill is totally wrong and illegal and has been sent to complainant just to harass the complainant and same is liable to be set aside. That complainant visited to the office of op no.1 time and again and requested for the correction of above said bill but the ops flatly refused to admit the request of complainant and put the matter off with one pretext or the other. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that bills of electricity connection No.JS14/2567 of the complainant were issued on average basis under the “D” code from reading month of May, 2014 to May, 2016 and bill of June, 2016 has also been issued on the average basis under “D” code. The meter of the complainant was installed vide MCO No.50/304 dated 17.4.2014. The account of the complainant has been overhauled from May, 2014 to May, 2016 and the amount of Rs.34,231/- has been charged from the complainant. This amount of Rs.34,231/- had been claimed by the ops from the complainant in the bill of August, 2017 as sundry charges. It is further submitted that no ground has been mentioned in the complaint on which the complainant has challenged the impugned bill. There is no complaint by complainant regarding the meter. The outstanding amount of Rs.37,921/- was added in the impugned bill of October, 2017 as arrears. It is correct that the impugned bill was issued for 244 units. It is further submitted that when the complainant approached the answering ops, he was made clear that this amount of bill has been charged as per rules of Nigam. The ops are ready to receive the arrears amount from the complainant in installments. The ops have disconnected the connection of complainant in due course of law. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
3. The complainant produced her affidavit Ex.PW1/A and copies of bills Ex.PA to Ex.PC and bill Ex.PD. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Godara, SDO Ex.R1, copy of reconnection order Ex.R2, copy of ledger Ex.R3 and copy of detail of connection of complainant Ex.R4.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant has filed this complaint with the allegations that originally a BPL connection was installed in the house of complainant at village Vaidwala under the instructions of the Government of Haryana. The amount of bill was to be recovered on minimum basis but ops started to recover the bill on the unit basis since 1.5.2016 which were paid by complainant regularly without any gap. But however, now op no.1 has claimed an amount of Rs.39,180/- to be payable on 30.10.2017 showing consumption of the electricity as 244 units. The demand of the ops is illegal and arbitrary. The ops have already disconnected the connection of the complainant. In order to prove her plea taken in the complaint, the complainant has furnished her affidavit Ex.PW1/A in which she has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and tendered bills Ex.PA to Ex.PD. On the other hand, ops have taken the plea that account of complainant has been overhauled from May, 2014 to May, 2016 and an amount of Rs.34,231/- has been charged from the complainant. This amount had been claimed by ops from the complainant in the bill of August, 2017 as sundry charges. There is no complaint by complainant regarding meter and in order to prove their defence plea, the ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Godara, SDO and have also placed on record copy of reconnection order Ex.R2, copy of ledger Ex.R3 and copy of detail of connection of complainant Ex.R4.
6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has not denied that complainant has not consumed the units as shown by ops qua the bill but however he has contended that the bills earlier issued by ops were duly paid well within time but this demand of disputed amount of Rs.34,231/- is quite arbitrary and illegal as same has been claimed since May, 2014 which is quite time barred. No doubt, under Section 56 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, there is a provision that the Electricity Corporation cannot recover or claim any amount on account of consumption of electricity charges more than the period of two years when amount is so claimed or payable. Learned counsel for opposite parties has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in case titled as M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and others, 2009 RCR (Civil) 30, and judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case titled as H.D. Shourie Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, AIR 1987 Delhi 219. It is settled law that opposite parties cannot recover any amount which is barred by law of limitation i.e. two years from the date when the amount became payable or same is claimed. But in case same is not claimed, the ops are not at liberty to recover the time barred amount as and when they so desire. As in the present case demand relates to the period May, 2014 to May, 2016 and it is undisputed fact between the parties that during this period ops had been sending the bills on average basis and they never made any efforts to assess the actual consumption of the meter of complainant nor they ever claimed this amount from the complainant through any bill prior to the bill in dispute. It is further proved fact on record that no notice was ever served to the complainant prior to the following procedure of overhauling the account of complainant in order to secure her presence and to overhaul her account in her presence. So, it appears from the record of the ops that they never made demand prior to the present bill in dispute. So, it will be in the fitness of things, if present complaint is partly allowed and ops are directed to re-examine and overhaul the account of complainant in her presence after serving a seven days prior notice to the complainant.
7. In view of the above, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to re-examine and overhaul the account of complainant in her presence after serving a seven days prior notice to the complainant and thereafter to re-assess the consumption of complainant if recovery of the same is not time barred. But however, the ops shall not be at liberty to recover any time barred amount prior to two years from the date of bill in dispute. After arriving at net amount, the ops shall give opportunity to the complainant to make payment of the amount in nine monthly installments alongwith current bill keeping in view the fact that complainant belongs to BPL category. The parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:21.3.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa
