Haryana

StateCommission

A/16/2021

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

KHEM CHAND - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.NEGI

09 Feb 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    16 of 2021

Date of Institution:  03.02.2021

Date of Decision:   09.02.2021

 

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Rohtak, through SDO, Sub Division No.1, Rohtak.

 

 

Appellant-Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

Khem Chand, aged 64 years son of Shri Singhram, resident of House No.148/9, Gali No.1, Basant Vihar, Sonepat Road, Rohtak.

 

 

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

                  

   

Present:     Shri B.S. Negi, counsel for the appellant.

                    

                  

                            

O R D E R

 

 T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned for the reasons as specified in the miscellaneous application.

2.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Rohtak-opposite party is in appeal against the order dated 28.09.2020 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak, whereby complaint preferred by complainant-Khem Chand, was allowed and the opposite party directed not to charge the alleged amount of Rs.25,456/- or any surcharge, interest or penalty imposed upon this amount from the complainant and the opposite party further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

3.      According to the complainant, he is consumer of opposite party and one electricity meter having account No.0334660000 installed outside the premises of the complainant and he was paying the bills regularly. As per the policy of the department, the meter was replaced in the year 2014. At the time of replacing the above said meter, no abnormality was detected/noticed by the department. The complainant received the electricity bill for the period from 24.01.2019 to 27.03.2019 showing consumption of 253.2 units (old reading 8989.3 while new reading 9242.5). However, he was in for surprise when he noticed an amount of Rs.25,456/- added in his bill on account of sundry charges. He approached the office of the opposite party to know the reason for adding sundry charges in his bill but the officials did not give any satisfactory reply. After several requests, he was replied that his electricity meter which was replaced in the year 2014 was slow and the amount added as sundry charges related to the period July, 2014 to June, 2015. The complainant told the officials of opposite party that he was not informed at any point of time by the department regarding slow running of the meter. The impugned electricity bill issued by the opposite party was illegal, null and void and against the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. The act of the opposite party was illegal and there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such, the complainant prayed that the opposite party be restrained from recovering the impugned amount of Rs.25,456/- from the complainant in any manner and the same be declared as illegal, null and void and the opposite party be also directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

4.      Upon notice, the opposite party put in appearance and filed the written version, wherein, it was stated that at the time of replacing the meter, no abnormality was detected/noticed. However, it was wrong and denied that the complainant was regularly making the payment of bills of electricity issued by the department. The officials of the opposite party checked the premises of the complainant and found that the meter was not functioning properly and hence the meter was removed and new meter installed in its place. The old faulty meter was checked in the presence of the complainant and found slow and accordingly the complainant charged Rs.25,456/- on account of slowness of meter vide SC & AR No.289/357 and the complainant asked to deposit the said amount but he failed. The amount raised in the bill in question was sundry charges, which was legal and as per sale circular of the Nigam, the complainant was duty bound to pay the same. Accordingly, prayer was made for dismissing the complaint.

5.      In his evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit (Exhibit CW1/A) and documents (Exhibit C1 and Exhibit C2), whereas, Shri Ramniwas SDO made a statement that the reply already filed be read as his affidavit and tendered document (Exhibit R1).

6.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the material aspects of the case, learned District Commission allowed the complaint by directing the opposite party not to charge the alleged amount of Rs.25,456/- or any surcharge, interest or penalty imposed upon this amount from the complainant. The opposite party was further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the officials of the opposite party had checked the premises of the complainant and found that the electricity consumption meter was not functioning properly. Therefore, the meter was removed and new meter installed in its place. The earlier meter was checked in the premises of the complainant and found to be slow and accordingly the complainant was asked to pay Rs.25,456/-. The said amount of the bill in question as sundry charges, was legal and as per sale circular of the Nigam. Hence, the complainant was duty bound to pay the same. Prayer has accordingly been made for accepting the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and dismissing the complaint.

8.      Having heard learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party, the State Commission finds that the audit party had taken period of audit w.e.f. 07/2014 to 06/2015 and prepared half margin report on 03.03.2017. As a result thereof, an amount of Rs.25,456/- was found chargeable from the complainant. The opposite party had charged this amount from the complainant in the electricity bill for the period from 24.01.2019 to 27.03.2019 i.e. after the gap of more than two years. As per Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the electricity dues for the period prior to two years from the date of revised bill cannot be asked to be paid by the consumer. In the report regarding detail of consumption from 07/2014 to 06/2015, there is no mention about the period of such audit and accordingly the said document could not be used so as to demand a sum of Rs.25,456/-, which as mentioned above, was after expiry of two years and thus not maintainable.

9.      In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order passed by learned District Consumer Commission. The appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. 

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.3,000/- deposited by the appellant while filing the appeal be disbursed in favour of the complainant against proper receipt and identification subject to appeal/revision, if any, but in accordance with law.

 

 

Announced 09.02.2021

(Harnam Singh Thakur) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

  D.R.