Haryana

StateCommission

A/287/2014

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kailash Chand - Opp.Party(s)

29 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.287 of  2014

Date of the Institution: 28.03.2014

and 09.04.2014.

Date of Decision: 29.02.2016

 

1. Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Managing Director, Vidhyut Nagar, Hisar (Haryana).
2. A.G.M., City Sub Division, Dakshini Haryaa Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Narnaul.
3. D.G.M., Operation, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Narnaul.

                                                                   .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Kailash Chand S/o Sh.Jeet Ram R/o Mohalla Peeraaga, Narnaul, District Mohindergarh,  Haryana.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi,Judicial Member

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the appellants.

                    None for the respondent.

O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

It alleged by the complainant that he was having domestic connection No.KKID-0827.  He deposited Rs.8667/- on 10.11.2010 qua the bill issued on 22.10.2010. Despite that the opposite parties (O.Ps.) issued bill No.0088 dated 25.12.2010 wherein Rs.17,664/- were shown as arrears.  On enquiry it was told by O.Ps., that the amount of the connection pertaining to Kailash Chand S/o Shri Chatru Ram having connection No. KKID 1186 was added in that bill alongwith surcharge and penalty.  It was told that he was surety of Kailash Chand son of Chatru Ram, so he was liable to pay that amount.

2.      it was alleged by the O.Ps.  that complainant stood surety for Kailash Chand S/o Chatru Ram who did not deposit the amount pertaining to his bill, so the same was added in the bill of complainant.

3.      After hearing both the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 03.10.2013 and ordered as under:-

“Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the opposite parties are directed not to charge or recover the amount of Rs.17664/- plus surcharge of Rs.546/- and further surcharge on it from the complainant, which was debited in the account of the complainant bearing electricity connection No.KK-ID-0827.  The opposite parties  are also directed to comply with this order within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the opposite parties-appellants have preferred this appeal. 

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the O.Ps. vehemently argued that from the perusal of Ex.R-5 and R-6 it is clear that the complainant gave undertaking that in case of default on the part of Kailash Chand son of Chatru Ram he would make the payment.  As Kailash Chand son of Chatru Ram did not make any payment, so this amount was  added of his bill.

7.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the amount pertaining to the account of Kailash Chand S/o Chatru Ram was pending since more than two years and that is why the O.Ps. were not entitled to recover the same. 

8.      We do agree with the arguments of counsel for the complainant.  Despite objection by complainant the O.Ps. have failed to show that the amount payable by Kailash Chand son of Chatru Ram was not beyond two years.  If they issued notice Ex.R-2 to complainant in the year 2009 it does not mean that period of limitation has extended as opined by Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Jansatta Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Vs. Kone Elevators India Pvt. Ltd. 1 (2016) CPJ 190.  It is opined therein that merely sending a notice does not constitute a cause of action nor does it extend period of limitation.  It is no where mentioned in this letter that to which period this amount was pertaining. If any amount is due since more than two years then the same cannot be recovered as provided under Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (In short “Act”).  It was the duty of the O.Ps. to prove this fact.  In case of doubt the benefit of the same is to be given to the consumer and not the service provider. Learned District Forum has considered each and every point properly and there is no reason to disturb the same.

8.      The opposite parties-appellants may fix the responsibility of the concerned official, who was responsible for this lapse and the loss suffered by department may be recovered from the concerned employee/employees as per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in  Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 and Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K.Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed  in Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K.Gupta (Supra) as under:-

“When the Court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man.  It is the tax payer’s money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law.  It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund ‘immediately’ but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behavior by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.”

9.      In view of above discussion, the order passed by the District Forum was perfectly right. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.2500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

February 29th, 2016

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.