Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/287/2013

Bala Makkar W/o T.R.Makkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Bhanwar Singh

18 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No.  287 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 23.04.2013.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 18.03.2016

Bala Makkar aged about 40 years wife of Sh. T.R.Makkar r/o H. No. 1329, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                         …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Executive Engineer (OP) Division, UHBVN Ltd., Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. 
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban, Sub Division, UHBVN Ltd., Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
3. Chairman, UHBVN Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.  

                                                                                                            …Respondents. 

 

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Jitender Pal Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

              Sh. D.S. Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for respondents.    

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Bala Makkar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs be directed to refund the excess amount of Rs. 20,047/- charged from the complainant and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.           

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is having an electricity connection bearing account No. Y32JU215752P at her premises and paying the bills regularly. The complainant received a bill No. 6262 dated 29.1.2013 for the period from 28.10.2012 to 28.12.2012 for an amount of Rs. 31130/- from the OPs and it was shocked to see the huge amount of arrears have been shown in the said bill. After receipt of aforesaid bill, the complainant visited the office of OPs and requested to correct the said bill but the officials of the OPs assured the complainant to adjust the said bill amount in the next bill and requested the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs. 18000/- out of total bill amount of Rs. 31130/-. On the assurance of the OPs, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 18,000/- out of total bill amount of Rs. 31,130/- but it was very shock for the complainant on receiving the next bill No. 6223 dated 27.3.2013 for an amount of Rs. 19,995/- in which an amount of Rs. 13519.13 has been shown as arrear and the Ops failed to fulfill their assurance and did not adjust the bill amount. The complainant again went to the OPs for redressal of her grievances but the OPs did not adjust the bill amount as was assured. As such, the OPs are indulged in unfair trade practice and have provide negligent and deficient services to the complainant. Hence this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint against the OPs by concealing the true facts and on merit it has been submitted that the meter of the complainant was defective from October 2008 to May 2009 and same was replaced on 6^th June 2009 vide MCO No. 46/2201 as the old meter was burnt and the bills were sent on average basis for that period. On the basis of reading for the month of December 2009, February 2010 and April 2010, the account of the complainant was overhauled with regard to preceding month of December 2008, February 2009 and April 2008 and after adjusting the amount of paid bills, the bill of balance amount was sent to the complainant and the complainant is liable to make the payment of the same. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of bill dated 22.01.2013 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of bill dated 27.03.2013 as Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence photo copy of Internal Audit report as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of ledger of account No. JU21-5752 as Annexure R-2 & R-3, Photo copy of MCO dated 2.7.2009 alongwith photo copy of register as Annexure R-4 & R-5 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 attached with the file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant is having an electricity connection bearing account No. Y32JU215752P. The only contention of the complainant is that OPs have demanded a sum of Rs. 20,047/- vide bill No. 6262 dated 29.01.2013 showing as sundry charges, which is illegal and liable to be quashed as the complainant is paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against the complainant.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs hotly argued that the meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No. 46/1101 dated 20.07.2009 as the same was dead stop and the account of the complainant was overhauled for the month of December 2008 to April 2009 on the basis of consumption shown by the new meter for the month of December 2009 to April 2010 and after adjusting the amount already paid by the complainant, an amount of Rs. 20,047/- found outstanding towards the complainant at the time of Audit by the Internal Audit Department of the Nigam and this amount has been demanded by the OPs by adding the same in the bill of January 2013. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties we are of the considered view that prior to issuance of bill dated 29.1.2013 neither any notice nor any opportunity of personal hearing has been given to the complainant. Further this contention has also been admitted by the OPs in their written statement that MCO was done on 20.7.2009 vide No. 46/1101 dated 20.7.2009 which is evident from Annexure R-4 and the account of complainant was overhauled on 13.02.2012 which is evident from Annexure R-1 for the month of December 2008 to April 2009 and this amount has been demanded by the OPs by adding the same in the bill of January,2013 but the Ops kept mum for raising any demand for a period of near about 4 years. Further the OPs failed to file any affidavit or any cogent evidence showing the calculation or adjustment of the account of complainant and in the absence of any cogent evidence it cannot be presumed that account of the complainant has been overhauled correctly.

10.                   After going through the relevant documents, it is admitted on the record that meter of the complainant was changed on 20.7.2009 and an amount of Rs. 20,047/- has been pointed out by the Internal Audit Department in the month of February 2012 and the OPs demanded vide bill No. 6262 dated 29.1.2013  after 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 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. The meter of the complainant was changed on 20.7.2009 but the local account department of the opposite parties not overhauled the account of the complainant for next two years till the Audit by Internal Audit Department and amount of Rs. 20047/- has been demanded only Ist time on 29.1.2013 by the OPs. It shows that the local official of the opposite parties was totally negligent and hence, there is great deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.  As such, the complainant is entitled for relief qua waiving of the amount of Rs. 20047/- levied by the opposite parties vide bill No. 6262 dated 29.01.2013. However, OPs Department is directed to recover the disputed amount from erring officer/officials as there was loss to the revenue of State Government.

11.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the opposite parties not to charge the amount of Rs. 20047/- from the complainant which has been shown as average adjustment in the bill dated 29.01.2013 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: 18.03.2016.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                                MEMBER