Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/669/2013

Ashok Kumar Kohli S/o Hari Chand Kohli - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer Division,UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav mehta

21 Apr 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No.  669 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 16.09.2013.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 21.04.2017

Ashok Kumar Kohli aged about 58 years son of late Hari Chand Kohli, resident of House No.3, Shastri Colony, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Executive Engineer (OP) Division, UHBVN, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            …Respondents. 

CORAM:        SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Gaurav Mehta, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

              Sh. Zile Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents.    

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                          Complainant Ashok Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.   

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No. Y43YT215290A and paying the electricity bills regularly. In the first week of September, 2013 the complainant received a memo bearing No. 4063 dated 29.08.2013 issued by the office of the OPs in which an amount of Rs. 24,628/- was demanded from the complainant alleging therein that their audit party has checked his account and the amount in question was found outstanding against the complainant. After that complainant immediately visited the office of the OPs and requested to withdraw the notice/ memo in question but the official of the OPs refused to do the same. Lastly, prayed for quashing the memo bearing No. 4063 dated 29.08.2013 and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3                      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement besides preliminary objections, it has been mentioned on merit that as per instructions of the Nigam, the account of the complainant was overhauled by the Internal Audit Department of Nigam and a sum of Rs. 24,628.32 has been charged by the OPs on the basis of half margin prepared by the audit department. An amount of Rs. 24,628.32  has been rightly charged by the Ops Nigam. Rest contents of the complaint have been denied being incorrect, wrong and matter of record

4                      In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of bill dated 13.07.2013 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of bill dated 22.04.2013 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of bill dated 10.03.2013 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of bill dated 13.01.2013 as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of memo bearing No. 4063 dated 29.08.2013 as Annex. C-5 and closed his evidence.

5                      On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence short affidavit of Sh. Ramesh Kumar SDO as Annexure RW/A, Photo copy of Internal Audit Department half margin report as Annexure R-1,Photo copy of sale circular No. U-22/2011 as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of ledger as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of sale circular No. U6/2007 as Annexure R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.       

7.                     The only plea of the OPs Nigam is that an amount of Rs. 24,628.32 has been charged due to overhauling the account of the complainant by the Internal Audit Department, so, the OPs Nigam has rightly issued memo bearing No. 4063 dated 29.08.2013 to the complainant and draw our attention towards the copy of ledger Annexure R-3 and Sale Circular Annexure R-2 and R-4. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that the complainant was paying the electricity bills regularly since the very beginning and nothing  was due against the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attentions towards the internal audit half margin report Annexure R-1 and argued that the account of the complainant has been overhauled on 29.08.2013 for the period of 22.04.2009 to 22.12.2009 i.e. after a period of near about 4 years which is totally illegal  and liable to be quashed as the complainant is paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against the complainant. 

9.                     After hearing both the parties we are of the considered view that the plea of the OPs Nigam is not tenable  as the OPs have admitted that the account of complainant was overhauled from the month of April 2009 to December  2009 which is evident from Annexure R-1 and the amount of Rs. 24,628.32 pointed out by the Audit Party has been demanded by the OPs Nigam vide memo No 4063 dated 29.08.2013 (Annexure C-5) i.e  the Ops Nigam kept mum for raising any demand for a period of near about 4 years which is patently illegal in the light of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that no sum due from any consumer under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two (2) 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. Furthermore, the local account department of the opposite parties not overhauled the account of the complainant for a period of four (4) years, it shows that the local officials of the OPs Nigam were totally negligent which constitute the deficiency on the part of the OPs Nigam.  As such, the complainant is entitled for relief qua waiving of the amount of Rs. 24,628.32 levied by the opposite parties vide memo No. 4063 dated 29.08.2013.

10.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the opposite parties not to charge the amount of Rs. 24,628.32- from the complainant which has been shown as arrear in the memo No.4063 dated 29.08.2013 and the same is hereby quashed and if any amount has been deposited against this bill, the same be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 21.04.2017.

                                                                                              (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

          (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                                  (S.C.SHARMA)

           MEMBER                                                                  MEMBER