Haryana

Panchkula

CC/473/2019

REKHA RAHI. - Complainant(s)

Versus

EXECUTIVE ENGINERR ,OP DIVISION ,UHBVNL. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

17 Aug 2022

ORDER

 

Before the District Consumer, Dispute Redressal, commission, Panchkula.

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	473 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	22.08.2019
Date of Decision	:	17.08.2022

 

Rekha Rahi R/o 2531, Sector-15, Panchkula-134113.                                                                                                                                                                                                             …….Complainant

                                                Versus

1.     Executive Engineer, OP.Division, UHBVN, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula-134113.

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer, UHBVN, City Sub-Division, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula-134113.

                                                               

                                                                   ….. Opposite Parties

Complaint under SecTION 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.  

                        Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

                        Dr. Sushma Garg, Member

 

                       

For the Parties:   Complainant in person. 

                        Sh.Y.P Rana, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.

Order   

 

(dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, MeMber)

 1.            Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant has a Domestic Electricity connection account no.213202UPC111060 and paying electricity bill regularly. During the month of February, 2019 the electricity bill no.618609900492 dated 18.02.2019 of Rs.42,731/- including the current bill of Rs.1,654.34 of February,2019 was raised by the UHBVN without any detail of Rs.41,077/- which was shown as sundry charges allowances. On receipt of bill of Rs.42,731/-, she met the then AEE and he asked her to deposit  a lump sum payment of Rs.5000/-, which was deposited the same on 28.02.2019, which was included the amount of current bill of Rs.1,654.34 for the month of February, 2019. Thereafter, the complainant met to the AEE number. of the time although he promised for the-reconciliation and providing detail of the above said amount bill  but no such detail have been provided in-spite of repeated visit and written request on 26.03.2019 made by her. It is stated that the RTI application for seeking the details/documents pertaining to the detail of Rs.42,731/- was made on 24.06.2019 but no relevant documents/ detail has been provided. No notice was given by the UHBVN of Rs.41,077/- before raising demand of Rs.41,077/- through bill dated 18.02.2019. The UHBVN raised again the demand on 26.04.2019 of Rs.40,332/- in which the current bill was of Rs.1,472/-. However, the current bill of Rs.1,472/- as per ordered of AEE on the bill was paid in time. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered financial loss, mental agony and harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, the OPs appeared through its counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable; no locus standi; not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts.  It is stated that the OPs have installed the electricity connection in the premises of the complainant but in the year 2015 the meter reader  informed the officials of the Ops that the electricity meter installed in the premises of the complainant is burnt  since 10.02.2015 and thereafter, the meter was changed by the department but the same could not be entered in the record of the department and the department used to issue the bills on average basis and the complainant used to make the payment of the electricity bill issued on average basis. Thereafter, in the month of June, 2016, the department updated the record of the meter of the complainant and issued the bill for 5743 units, in November 2017 as the Audit Department of the OPs have conducted the audit and overhauled the account of  her since 10.06.2016 to 06.06.2017 and after overhauling the account of the complainant and after adjusting the earlier amount paid by the complainant, an amount of Rs.41,077/- was found outstanding towards the complainant; hence the department had issued the bill to her which she has not paid till date.  On merits, pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.             The complainant has tendered her affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit as Annexure R-A along with document Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the entire record available on record, minutely and carefully.

5.             Admittedly, the complainant was making the payment of electrical charges till the disputed demand of Rs.41,077/- under the head of sundry charges/allowance was raised by the OPs vide bill dated 18.02.2019(Annexure C-2). The complainant has disputed the legality and validity of the said bill on the ground that the details of Rs.41,077/- as raised under the head of sundry charges vide said bill dated 18.02.2019(Annexure C-2) was never provided to her.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP, while controverting the assertions and contentions of the complainant, reiterated the averments made in the written statement and contended that the electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant got burnt on 10.02.2015, which was changed later on but the change could not be reflected in the record of the department and thus, the complainant was issued the bills qua consumption of electric units on average basis. It is contended that the record was up dated in the month of June, 2016 and thereafter, the account of the complainant was overhauled w.e.f. 10.06.2016 to 06.06.2017 and after overhauling the account and making the adjustment of the earlier amount paid by the complainant, an amount of Rs.328.6 is found payable by the complainant.

7.             After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on record, it is an admitted factual position that the complainant had been making the payment of electrical charges regularly, without any default, till the issuance of bill dated 18.02.2019(Annexure C-2) wherein a sum of Rs. 41,077/- was raised as arrears under the head of sundry charges. The OPs have justified the said demand on the basis of report of audit, which was conducted in November, 2017 for the period from 10.06.2016 to 06.06.2017.

8.             As per rival contentions of the parties, the sole question for adjudication in the present complaint, is, whether the demand raised vide bill dated 18.02.2019(Annexure C-2) for a sum of Rs.41,077/- under the head of the sundry charges is recoverable.

9.             The OPs have taken the plea that the demand was raised vide disputed bill on the basis of Audit report which is nowhere proved on record. The OP is/was under legal obligation to prove its version by cogent evidence i.e. by providing the complete documentary evidence but in the present case, the OP has neither placed any report of audit party nor any half margin vide which it could be clear that the account of the complainant was audited by the audit party in any manner.  Moreover, the complainant was not associated or heard during the audit made by the audit party. Furthermore, no show cause notice asking the complainant to make the payment on the basis of audit report was ever issued by the OP. Therefore, the demand raised by the OP vide bill dated 18.02.2019 (Annexure C-2) on the basis of overhauling of the account of the complainant is not legal, valid or justified. In this regard, we may  safely place reliance upon the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana in F.A.No.83 of 2015 titled as Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Others Vs. Dinesh Sharma wherein it has held as under:-

                “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section2(1)(g)-Electricity-Sundry        Charges added in electricity bill of complainant-Held- No show  cause notice          issued to the complainant before imposing penalty-O.Ps.have miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was           ever served upon the complainant-in this way they did not act as per    provisions contained in the Electricity Act and it is deficiency  in service-        Consumer can ask the service provider to give him the details on basis of     which the demand is made, which is not in the present complaint”.

10.            In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of considered view that the demand raised vide bill dated 18.02.2019 (Annexure C-2) for a sum of Rs.41,077/- is liable to be quashed being invalid and illegal and thus, the same is hereby quashed. Further, the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant for its deficient services rendered to her.

11.  
12.  

Announced on:17.08.2022

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal          

            Member                       Member                               President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                   Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini                              

 Member