BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 178 of 2017                                                                        

                                                           Date of Institution         :           21.7.2017                                                                 

                                                         Date of Decision   :           24.1.2018

Rai Singh, aged 76 years, son of Shri Bhaga Ram, resident of village Narian Khera, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

            ……Complainant.

                                                Versus.

1 Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its managing Director at Hisar.

2 Executive Engineer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitram Nigam Ltd., Op City Division, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

3 Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Op Nathusari Chopta Sub Division, District 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.P.K. Berwal, Advocate for the complainant.

    Sh. S.K. Garg, Advocate for the opposite parties.

ORDER

                                In brief, the case of complainant is that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties vide DS electric connection bearing No.SN21-280, which is installed at his residential house, situated at village Narian Khera, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The complainant has been making payment of the consumption charges to the ops regularly and completely as per consumption charges bills being supplied to him by the ops and has never defaulted in the same. The electric meter for this connection is installed outside the premises of complainant i.e. on electric pole. It is further averred that complainant was served with a bill no.2312 dated 25.4.2017 for the period 15.1.2017 to 15.3.2017 with old reading as 13135 and new reading as 13783 i.e. for   648 units consumed and besides the current consumption charges, the ops further added a sum of Rs.65,615.29/- in the said bill as sundry charges and thus, sent a bill of Rs.69,623/- with last date of payment of the bill as 12.5.2017. In the said bill, the status of meter has been shown as OK and no previous arrears have been shown against the complainant. All the bills issued prior to the above bill dated 25.4.2017 have been fully paid by the complainant as supplied to him and he never defaulted in the payment of the same. It is further averred that previous bills prior to bill dated 25.4.2017 were issued by the ops on minimum basis. The meter of above connection is showing reading, but it seems that meter reader did not record the physical reading at the spot for last several years, which is gross negligence on the part of meter reader of the ops and thus, the complainant is not liable for the negligence on the part of the meter reader of the ops. It is further averred that on receipt of the above bill, the complainant visited the op no.3 and inquired about the levy of aforesaid huge amount of 65,615.29/- upon him, whereupon op no.3 disclosed that it is the fault on the part of meter reader. The aforesaid bill is quite wrong, illegal, unlawful because due to the fault on the part of meter reader, the complainant cannot be penalized and thus, the said amount is liable to be withdrawn from the account of complainant. That since the above bill of was very huge amount, and the complainant being very poor person could not pay the same. The ops got changed the old meter installed at the premises of complainant and got installed a new meter. Thereafter, the complainant was served with a bill no.2310 dated 25.6.2017 for the period 15.3.2017 to 15.5.2017 showing old reading as 1 and new reading as 17 i.e. for 16 units, but the said bill was prepared for 773 units consumed. In this bill a sum of Rs.71,676.45/- of previous bill was also added. This bill is also wrong, against law and facts, because, the consumption has been shown of only 16 units, but the ops have prepared this bill for 773 units. So, this bill is also liable to be corrected. The complainant on receipt of bill dated 25.6.2017 again visited the op no.3 and inquired about the bill for 773 units, but op no.3 did not pay any heed and stated that if the complainant wants to get continuous supply then he will have to pay this bill, otherwise his electric connection would be disconnected. Since the said bill was for a huge amount, the complainant could not make payment of the same and thus, the said electric connection of the complainant has been disconnected by the ops. In this manner, the complainant has been put to unnecessary financial burden, harassment, hardship and humiliation by the ops only due to fault on the part of their own officials, therefore, the impugned amount of Rs.65,615.29/- alongwith surcharge thereon and excess consumption charges claimed in bill no.2310 dated 25.6.2017 are liable to be withdrawn from the account of the complainant. However, the complainant is ready to make payment of the current consumption charges of bill no.2312 dated 25.4.2017 and consumption charges for 16 units as per bill no.2310 dated 25.6.2017. The electric connection of the complainant is also liable to be restored. That the opposite parties have refused to admit the claim of the complainant two days ago and the ops by their act and conduct have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant. Hence, this complaint. 

2.                On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement in which they have taken preliminary objections regarding suppression of material facts, cause of action, locus standi, estoppal and maintainability. On merits, it is submitted that contents of para no.1 are correct to the extent of consumer vide connection no.SN21-280 in the name of Rai Singh, rest of the para is incorrect as the consumer is defaulter of Nigam. It is further submitted that contents of para no.2 of the complaint are correct to the extent of issuance of bills from February, 2017 on actual reading recorded by the team of Nigam and regarding new meter and meter reading at that time was 13135. It is further submitted that previously from December 2012 at the reading of 8587 meter of consumer was shown defective by the meter reader and consumer was billed on MMC (Minimum charges) bases, and on this actual reading account of the consumer overhauled after taking into consideration of paid units under minimum charges and an amount of Rs.69623/- has been charged as difference of consumed units by this office due to M.C.O effected 27/1133 dated 12.6.2017. In the meantime a checking was carried out by the team of Nigam headed by Sh. Desh Raj J.E alongwith other officials of the Nigam on dated 10.6.2017 at about 4.50 PM with the following was noted:

I. During checking Sh. Ravinder Kumar son of Sh. Rai Singh was present.

II. Videography taken at site.

III. Load verified at site.

IV. Whole process is done to solve the C.M. Window.

V. Further necessary action will be taken as per Nigam rules.

VI. Meter removed from site to check the accuracy of meter and meter referred to lab.LLI no.643/41, signed by team of Nigam and Ravinder son of Rai Singh. Further on 12.6.17 joint checking by Lab. in the presence of Sh. Rai Singh consumer, accuracy of the meter found O.K. at reading 14540. Reading movement checked in lab from 14540.1 to 14541.2 and meter replaced vide M.C.O. No.27 dated 12.6.17 at old reading 14540 and new meter reading 1-0 again due to non payment of bills, connection of consumer disconnected on 07.07.2017 at the reading 329, further reconnected as per order on 27.7.2017 on the same reading 329 and proceedings of the same were sent in compliance with CM window inquiry. This one shows his actual consumption of energy 329 units for 25 days, and this is a matter of collected reading.

                    It is further submitted that it is the understanding of the consumer with the old meter reader for accumulation of reading and now he wants to take the benefits of his own wrongs, consumer was well aware of his consumption, when meter reader was not recording his consumption he should approach to higher officers, but he did not do so. It is further submitted that all the bills are quite right, issued on the basis of actual consumption of the consumer, he was himself on fault to accumulate his actual consumption. The consumer is not a poor person, he has sufficient means to pay, further he should pay the consumed units, as regards to bill no.2310 dated 25.6.17. It is submitted new meter was installed on his premises at the reading 1-0 and next reading is 17, this shows his consumption 16 units of new meter + current reading of old meter (14540-13783 as already billed in previous bill of April -16+757=773 units total consumed as charged in bill, so, bill no.,2310 issued as per rules, validly and complainant is liable to pay the same. It is further submitted that the complainant does not want to understand the account and his request to waive the bill is not in the purview of their powers, so due to non payment of bills his connection was disconnected and on depositing money his connection stands restored on 27.7.2017. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.

3.                The parties have led evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered Ex.C1- his own supporting affidavit, Ex.C2 to Ex.C17 copies of electricity bills,   Ex.C18 copy of letter dated 23.6.2017. On the other hand OPs tendered Ex.DA affidavit of Sh. Ravi Sub Divisional Officer, Ex.D1 photocopy of statement of account of Rai Singh,  Ex. D2 photocopy of checking report LL-1 and  Ex.D3 photo copy of meter change order.

4.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant has strongly contended that complainant is holding domestic connection of the electricity and is paying the electricity charges as per bills served by ops without any failure. It has further been contended that complainant was served with a bill on 25.4.2017 for the period 15.1.2017 to 15.3.2017 with old reading as 13135 and new reading as 13783 i.e. for 648 units consumed and the ops further added a sum of Rs.65,615.29/- in the said bill as sundry charges. The meter reader has not recorded the physical reading at the spot for the last several years which is gross negligence on the part of ops and this amount of Rs.65,615.29/- has been illegally added in the consumption bill of the complainant. It has also been contended that as per Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the ops cannot recover any amount which has not been claimed for a period of more than two years as same is time barred and has not been carried in further consumption bills.

6.                On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has contended that complainant has been depositing only bill on the basis of average and has not been depositing the bills as per actual consumption in connivance with the meter reader. The actual reading was recorded at 13135 and previously in December, 2012 it was recorded at 8587 by the meter reader and the consumer was billed on minimum charge basis and on this actual reading an amount of Rs.69623/- has been charged as difference of consumed units by the office due to MCO effected 27/1133 dated 12.6.2017. It was due to the understanding with the old meter reader for accumulation of the reading and now he wants to take benefits of his wrongs. He has further submitted that new meter was installed on his premises at the reading 1 and next reading is 17, this shows his consumption of 16 units of new meter plus current reading of old meter 14540-13783 as already billed in previous bill of April 16+757 =773 units total consumed as charged in bill, so bill No.2310 issued as per rules and complainant is liable to pay the same. It has also been contended that recovery is not time barred as demand has been made by ops in the month of April, 2017 after calculating the difference of the consumption from the period December, 2012 to February, 2017.

7.                We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

8.                It is undisputed fact that complainant is a regular consumer of the opposite parties and is holding a domestic connection number SN21-280. Further he was paying bills of electricity charges on the basis of bills which were being served by the ops. It is also undisputed fact that bills were being issued by ops on the basis of average units recorded by meter reader. It is further undisputed that originally the reading of the meter was recorded in December, 2012 with consumption of 8587 units and reading which was recorded in the month of February, 2017 for consumption of 13135 units. Though the complainant had been depositing the electricity charges on the basis of bills but the record reveals that he never made any application to the ops that he is getting bills on average basis though his consumption is more from average consumption which has been shown in the bills. The evidence of the ops also reveals that ops never made any efforts in order to check the report of the meter reader who had been writing the average consumption of the units with 90 units or 80 units.

9.                Though during the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops has raised allegations that meter reader had been making all these fake reports in connivance with the complainant in order to cause favour to the complainant by concealing actual consumption of the meter but on the other hand there is specific allegation of the complainant that it was meter reader who had been making reports time and again for such a long time on average consumption basis meaning thereby either he did not visit at the spot in order to record the physical reading of the meter or he made report at his own and there was no connivance of the complainant with the meter reader. It was only the lapse or negligence on the part of meter reader duly employed by ops and ops deserve to suffer due to lapses of their employee/ agent who used to visit and record the reading and making reports of his own from time to time. Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides as under:-

“Section 56(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 arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.”

10.              It is apparently clear from Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 that no sum due from any consumer under this section shall be recovered after 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 per plea and evidence of the opposite parties, the fact regarding actual consumption of the meter came to their knowledge in the month of February, 2017 and thereafter they calculated the charges and made demand of the electricity charges to the tune of Rs.65,615.29/- as sundry charges on account of the previous consumption for the period December, 2012 to February, 2017. There is nothing on record from which it could be presumed that the ops ever made demand prior to February, 2017 or they ever made any inspection of the meter or served any notice to the meter reader for not recording actual and physical reading of the meter for the period December, 2012 to February, 2017. In these circumstances, it appears that the ops are not entitled to recover any amount from the complainant as per provisions of Section 56 (2) of the Act after period of more than two years i.e. prior to February, 2015. So the demand by ops of the amount of Rs.65,615.29/- qua this period appears to be not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and amount so claimed by ops for the period December, 2012 to January, 2015 appears to be time barred and same is not recoverable.

11.              Though, during the course of arguments learned counsel for ops has strongly contended that there are certain regulations under which the ops can recover the amount so claimed from the complainant but the evidence of the ops reveals that ops have not placed on record any such regulations which authorizes the ops to recover such a time barred amount from the consumer for which the provisions of Electricity Act does not permit.

12.              It has also been conceded by learned counsel for ops that complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.30,000/- with the ops in addition to current bills as per interim orders of this Forum.    

13.              In view of the above, we allow this complaint set aside the demand of Rs.65,615.29/- which has been claimed by ops and direct the opposite parties to overhaul the account of the complainant in his presence by serving a seven days prior notice and re-calculate the amount of consumption of electricity from February, 2015 to date applying rates of electricity which were prevailant at that time and deduct the amounts of bills which have been deposited by the complainant including amount of Rs.30,000/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation to the complainant. But however the ops are at liberty to recover the amount which has become time barred due to negligence of the erring official from the said official at their end. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

Announced in open Forum.                                                        President,

Dated:24.1.2018.                          Member                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                           Redressal Forum, Sirsa.