BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.       

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 19 of 2018                                                                      

                                                             Date of Institution  :         9.1.2018                                                                         

                                                                Date of Decision    :         16.1.2019

Vinod Kumar (aged about 30 years) son of Sh. Krishan Kumar, resident of village Ban Sudhar, Tehsil and District Sirsa.                                                                                                                                                           ……Complainant.

                                                Versus.

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam , through its Managing Director, Panchkula.

2. Superintending Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Barnala Road, Sirsa.

3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub Division City Sirsa, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam.

...…Opposite parties.     

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI R.L. AHUJA………………….. PRESIDENT

                      SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. V.S. Sihag, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties.

ORDER

                                In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties as an electric connection No.SP33-0151 was allotted in favour of complainant for domestic purpose. Thereafter being a prudent consumer, the complainant is enjoying the electricity connection facility after paying monthly regular consumption charges and had never defaulted at any time. That according to need the complainant got increased the sanctioned load time to time. The premises of complainant was duly inspected by the ops from time to time for the purpose of checking the apparatus and load etc. and the electricity equipment and other connected instruments found to be in order as per the parameters of the electricity norms. It is further averred that few of time due to electrical fluctuation or some of the technical reason, the electric meter was changed at the cost of complainant. That as per the newly launched scheme introduced by the Government of Haryana, the meters have been shifted outside the house. It is further averred that it is well known to every consumer that after installation of electricity meter outside the house, the department undertakes the entire maintenance, safety etc. in favour of the consumer. The safety measure were also sketched and allotted to the private agencies on contract basis. Even inspection of the meter-reading, apparatus etc. are to be guarded by the agencies under the control and supervision of the ops. It is further averred that after shifting of the electricity meters, the same are being inspected, verified by the technical persons of the ops, who are also endorsing their reports for data purpose. So, in this manner after 2007-08, the complainant all the times upon receiving the electricity consumption bills paying the same without any default. The meter-reader officials of the ops are also recording the consumption data on the basis of which the bills are prepared. The officials are duty bound to report the status of meter/ apparatus of every consumer as per the scheme. It is further averred that since the installation of the electric meter, the average of the consumption charges was/is only between 250 and 600 only. The above data shows the consumption and regular payment of the same by the complainant. That the complainant received bill No.02857 issued on 25.11.2017 for the consumption from 20.8.2017 to 20.10.2017 showing 365 consumed units as per meter reading from 2785 to 3147. After calculating the units consumption the bill of the same comes to Rs.1862.80 only. But the alleged sundry allowances were also added to the tune of Rs.5397/-. The complainant upon receiving the electricity bill contacted with op no.3 and enquired about the alleged sundry charges, but no satisfactory reply was given to complainant. It is further averred that complainant requested the op no.2 for permitting him to deposit only consumed unit charges but he refused to admit his genuine request. The complainant further requested for supplying the details how the alleged amount of Rs.5397/- has been added in his bill, even there was no occasion in his family and there must be some inadvertent mistake on the part of meter- reader. Thereafter, the complainant went to the office of op no.2 and requested him to remove the alleged sundry charges wrongly added in the bill of complainant but op no.2 flatly refused to accept the request of complainant rather threatened that in case he failed to pay the entire amount of the bill then the electricity connection of complainant shall be disconnected without giving prior notice. That the ops have adopted unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and negligence. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, no deficiency in service and estoppal etc. It is submitted that previously electric meter of complainant was defective and the same was replaced with new meter vide MCO No.48/1217 dated 14.1.2016. Prior to replacing the said defective meter with new one, the complainant was charged only minimum consumption charges and after installation of new meter, the consumption charges on average basis for the period of defective meter was overhauled in the account of complainant in view of average of consumption charges of new electric meter and as such an amount of Rs.5397/- was added by Internal Revenue Audit Department through Half Margin vide memo No.2017/22/47 dated 4.9.2015 and the complainant is liable to pay the said amount to the Nigam. Moreover, the Nigam has demanded the amount of Rs.5397/- from the complainant on account of consumption charges on average consumed units of 181 monthly, which is less than the average mentioned by complainant and same is legal and genuine and Nigam has followed all the rules and regulars and sale circular No.D28/2013. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.

3.                Then the parties led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

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 averments that he is holding an electric connection No.SP33-0151 which is for domestic purposes and he is paying the electricity charges regularly. The electric meter was changed at the costs of complainant. The average of the consumption charges was 250 to 600 only and bill lastly served by the ops was duly paid. He has further averred that amount of Rs.5397/- has been added in the impugned bill, the demand of which is illegal and against law and facts. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the ops that since the meter of the complainant was not working properly and same was changed at the request of complainant but however, for the period during which meter remained dead, average charges has been assessed by the competent authority vide memo Ex.D2 and demand has been made accordingly.

6.                The perusal of the evidence of complainant reveals that complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 in support of his averments made in the complaint and has also relied upon copies of bills Ex.C2 to Ex.C7, copy of challan Ex.C8, copy of permanent disability certificate Ex.C9, copy of adhar card Ex.C10 and copy of bill Ex.C11. On the other hand, ops have furnished affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Sheoran, SDO as Ex.R1 and have placed on record memo dated 4.9.2015 Ex.D2 in which calculation has been made on the basis of average consumption charges during the period mentioned in the memo.

7.                It is undisputed fact that on complaint of complainant, meter of complainant was changed and after installation of new meter, the consumption of meter was being recorded by ops and bills have been issued which were being paid by complainant. The only bone of contention is qua amount of Rs.5397/- which has been added in the last bill Ex.C11 on account of sundry charges. The ops have relied upon the memo dated 4.9.2015 Ex.D2 in which details of average charges has been mentioned. So it appears that this memo was issued on 4.9.2015, however, this amount has been added in the bill dated 25.11.2017 after a period of more than two years. It is settled law that opposite parties cannot recover any amount which is barred by law of limitation i.e. after two years as per Section 56 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.   

8.                In view of the above, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to overhaul the account of complainant in his presence after serving a seven days prior notice to the complainant and thereafter to re-assess the demand afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the complainant qua the average charges calculated by ops and thereafter provide 15 days period to deposit money due, if any, if same is not time barred. 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:16.1.2019.                                 Member                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                      Redressal Forum, Sirsa.