Haryana

StateCommission

A/124/2016

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHAVIR - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

06 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      124 of 2016

Date of Institution:      09.02.2016

Date of Decision :       06.09.2016

1.      Sub Divisional Officer (OP), Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Badrola (Tigaon) Sub Division, Faridabad.  

2.      Executive Engineer (Op.) Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Ballabgarh Division, Ballabgarh, Opposite Good Year Factory, Sector-6, Faridabad.  

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Mahavir s/o Sh. Tek Chand, Resident of Village and Post Office, Tigaon, Tehsil & District Faridabad.

                                      Respondent-complainant

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for appellants.

Ms. Anika Mehra, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Yash Dev Kaushik, counsel for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated December 24^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby Consumer Complaint No.189 of 2010 filed by Mahavir-complainant/respondent, was accepted. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“8.     Hence the complaint is allowed. opposite parties are directed not to include the amount mentioned in memo No.545 dated 18.3.2010 in future bills of complainant’s account number AP-372Z and not to disconnect the power connection of account No.AP-372Z due to non-payment of outstanding amount raised in aforesaid memo Opposite Parties are further directed, jointly & severally, to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation towards mental agony and tension as well as Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 (thirty0 days from the date of receipt of this order.”

2.                The complainant-respondent was having electric tubewell connection bearing account No.AP-372Z from Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL). He was paying the bills to the DHBVNL. A dispute arose between the complainant and the opposite parties/appellants with respect to the bills of Rs.23,472/- and Rs.25,144/-.  The complainant filed consumer complaint bearing No.980 dated 05.12.2002 before the District Forum, Faridabad and the said complaint was disposed of by the District Forum vide order dated 06.10.2009 directing the DHBVNL not to recover the disputed bills from the complainant, except the amount of power consumed during that period and not to disconnect the power connection on account of non-deposit of the disputed amount, referred to above and in case the supply was already disconnected, the DHBVNL was directed to restore the same, if running bills have been paid. this order has attained finality. The complainant was also awarded Rs.2200/- towards cost of litigation. The complainant filed execution application which was dismissed as fully satisfied.

3.                The DHBVNL-Opposite Parties, issued notice bearing No.545 dated 18.03.2010 (Annexure C-5) raising demand of Rs.56,168/-, as under:-

“Subject:    Court case No.980 of 2002, Sh. Mahavir vs. DHBVNL    . Notice for payment of defaulting amount.

In continuation to this office memo No.5429 dated 2.12.2009 vide which you were requested to pay the outstanding defaulting amount of Rs.53,110/- against your a/c No.AP-372Z but you have not paid the said amount till date. The notice for payment was received by you on dt.3.12.09.

So you are again requested to pay the defaulting amount of Rs.56168/- within 4 days, failing which your connection will be disconnected and action will be taken as per Nigam’s instructions.”

4.                The complainant approached the opposite parties/appellants to withdraw the aforesaid notice in view of the order dated 06.10.2009 passed by the District Forum.  Reply (Annexure C-6) to the notice (Annexure C-5) was also submitted but to no avail. Hence, the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, was filed.

5.                The opposite parties/appellants resisted complainant’s claim by filing written version raising plea that as per the order of the District Forum the amount of Rs.72,440/- was adjusted in the account of the complainant vide SC & AR No.248/R-78 and the outstanding amount of Rs.56,168/- was demanded from the complainant. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties-appellants, as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

7.                Indisputably, the disputed amount of Rs.56,168/- vide notice No.545 dated 18.03.2010, relates to the period prior to 05.12.2002, that is, when the earlier complaint No.980 dated 05.12.2002, was filed before the District Forum. Thus, the opposite parties/appellants raised the demand after about eight years.

8.                The question which requires consideration is as to whether the disputed amount of Rs.56,168/- was not recoverable being barred in view of Section 56(2) of Electricity Act, 2003?

9.               Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, reads as under:-

“(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, 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.”

10.              A reading of the aforesaid provision shows that no sum could be recovered from the consumer after the period of two years from the date when it became first due. In the instant case, the disputed amount related prior to the year 2002 and therefore, the said amount could not be recovered from the complainant. Thus, the demand raised by the opposite parties was barred in view of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act.

11.              In view of the above, the order passed by the District Forum requires no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

12.              The statutory amount of Rs.1650/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 06.09.2016

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

CL