Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/146/2022

M/s Shiv Bhole Stone Crusher - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director, DHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Varun Aggarwal

19 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI. 

                                                          Complaint No.: 146 of 2022.

                                                         Date of Institution: 31.05.2022.

                                                          Date of Order: 19.07.2024.

M/s Shiv Bhole Stone Crusher, village Kheri Battar, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri through its Proprietor Jasvin Pahal, resident of M. C. Colony, Charkhi Dadri.

                                                                   …..Complainant.

                    Versus

1. D H B V N, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Managing Director.
2. Executive Engineer, D.H.B.V.N. (OP) Division, Charkhi Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, D.H.B.V.N. (OP) Division, Charkhi Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri.

…...Opposite Parties.

 

                   COMPLAINT UNDER THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

                  

Present:       Shri Varun Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Anil Sharma, Advocate for the OPs.

 

ORDER:-

                   Brief facts of the case are that the complainant firm was established by the father of its present proprietor for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, however, father of proprietor of complainant firm had died in the year 2014 and as per family settlement, present proprietor of complainant firm has become the proprietor of complainant firm, being unemployed.  It is averred that the complainant firm had submitted an application to increase load from 440 KW to 650 KW and an amount of Rs.1,63,250/- was deposited vide receipt No. 11935758 dated 4.4.2016.  It is further averred that as per the instructions, OPs shall have to extend the load within one month from receipt of payment, however, load has not been extended within the prescribed time and extended on 15.5.2018.  It is further averred that after increase of load OPs issued monthly electric charges bill against the extended load and complainant continuously depositing the same.  It is further averred that on pointing out by the audit, OPs demanded an amount of Rs.7,01,454/- on the pretext that extension of load shall be counted from 2.12.2016 to 14.5.2018 and not from the actual extension, whereas a H.T. meter is installed, which is regularly recording the connected load and electricity consumed.  It is further averred that there is no reading of consumption of excess load, hence, no amount can be charged on the pretext that extension of load will be counted from back date.  It is further averred that complainant had requested to OPs not to charge the amount of Rs.7,01,454/- on the false and wrong ground, only on pointing out of the audit party, which is completely against the consumption of electricity recorded in electric meter, but OPs were adamant to charge above amount and threatened to disconnect the electric supply, if the same is not deposited, hence, the complainant had no other option, except to deposit the same under protest.  It is further averred that electric connection No. B36-MRHT-20 was released to run the stone crusher at village Kheri Battar, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri under self-execution scheme.  It is further averred that all the expenses of the erection of H. T. line had been incurred by the complainant, hence, complainant was not liable to pay any service connection charge i.e. the cost of extension of service line from the distribution main to point of supply, but the OPs have wrongly charged an amount of Rs. 3,66,750/-.  It is further averred that the complainant has requested many times to OPs and visited their office in this regard with the request to refund the wrongly charged amount, but they OPs have not refunded the same on the pretext that as per Sale Circular No. D-26/2015 complainant is liable to pay the extension of service line charges, whereas as per the above circular the complainant was not liable to pay the charges, the OPs have wrongly interpreted the above circular.  The complainant had submitted an application dated 19.12.2019 with the request to refund the amount, which was received by the OPs on 26.12.2019 in the office of OP No. 3, but the OPs have neither replied the application nor refunded the amount.  It is further averred that the cause of action to file present complaint accrued on 26.12.2019, which is continue and recurring one and the present complaint is within prescribed period.  It is further averred that the OPs were requested many times to refund the amount, but they did not pay any heed towards the requests, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                On appearance, the OPs filed contested written statement denying the allegations of the complainant.  It is averred that the Audit team of the OPs rightly calculated the amount of Rs.7,01,454/- on the connection of the complainant for extended load for the period from 2.12.2016 to 14.5.2018 and the OPs have rightly charged the same from the complainant.  It is admitted that electric connection No. B36-MRHT-20 was granted under the self execution scheme.  It is further averred that the OPs have rightly charged Rs.3,66,750/- i.e. cost of extension of service line from the distribution of main point of supply, as per circular No. D-26/2015.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant to prove his case placed on record the duly sworn affidavit of the complainant as Ex. CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to C3 and closed the evidence. 

4.                 Ld. Counsel for the OPs in support of its case has placed on record the duly sworn affidavit as Ex. RW1/A documents Ex. R1 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties at length and gone through the case file very carefully.

6.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant has reiterated the contents of complaint.  He contended that OPs have wrongly charged the amount of Rs.7,01,454/- and Rs.3,66,750/- from the complainant firm.  He further contended that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint. He further contended that the complainant firm was established by the father of present proprietor for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and thus, the complainant is consumer under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and placed his reliance upon case law titled as Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. Vs M/s Vipul Ltd., Civil Appeal No.5858 of 2015, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 6.9.2023.

7.                On the other hand, ld. counsel for OPs reiterated the contents of the written statement. He contended that the amount has been rightly charged from the complainant firm.  He further contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

8.                After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material/facts and documents available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint in hand deserves acceptance, because there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 

9.                The plea taken by complainant firm is that they have moved an application dated 19.12.2019 for refund of amount, which was received by the OPs on 26.12.2019 is tenable, because the OPs have failed in passing any order on that application.  Moreover, the OPs have nowhere controvert the stand taken by the complainant in pleadings.  So, in our view, the present complaint is well within limitation period.  The plea taken by the OPs that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, is not tenable at all, because it is specifically pleaded that the complainant firm was established by the father of the present proprietor of the firm for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and thus, the complainant is consumer under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  So, the present complaint is well within the purview of ‘Consumer’ under Section 2 (1) (d) of the CP Act, 2019.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. Vs M/s Vipul Ltd., Civil Appeal No.5858 of 2015 has also explained the interpretation of the Commercial Purpose and also of the Consumer.  The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is applicable to the facts of the present case.

10.              The dispute arises when the OPs have charged an amount of Rs.3,66,750/- i.e. cost of extension of service line from distribution main to point of supply and further when they had charged an amount of Rs. 7,01,454/-, after pointed out by audit on the pretext that extension of load shall be counted from 2.12.2016 till 14.5.2018.  The OPs in their written statement have admitted Para No.2 of complaint as correct, wherein the complainant firm had averred that they have submitted application to increase load from 440 KW to 650 KW and deposit an amount of Rs.1,63,250/- vide receipt No. 11935758 dated 4.4.2016 and the OPs have to extend the load within one month from receipt of payment, however, the load was extended on 15.5.2018.  In our view, when the OPs have admitted the stand taken by the complainant, then it is clear that the OPs have wrongly charged an amount of Rs. 7,01,454/- from the complainant and the audit have wrongly pointed out for charging above amount on the pretext that extension of load shall be counted from 02.12.2016 till 14.5.2018.  It is also admitted fact that actually the load was extended by the OPs only on 15.5.2018.  The second dispute of the complainant is that the OPs have wrongly charged an amount of Rs.3,66,750/- i.e. cost of extension of service line from the distribution of main point of supply.  The plea taken by the OPs that have rightly charged Rs.3,66,750/- i.e. cost of extension of service line from distribution of main point of supply, as per circular No. D-26/2015 is not tenable at all, because the OPs in Para No. 5 of their written statement have admitted that electric connection No. B36-MRHT-20 was granted to the complainant firm under the self execution scheme.  Moreover, the OPs have failed to place on record copy of sale circular No. D-26/2015 to prove the stand taken by them or any other documentary evidence to prove their stand.  On the other hand, the complainant has fully proved its case by producing on record documents Ex. C1 to C3 and receipt dated 24.9.2015 for depositing an amount of Rs. 7,07,250/- with the OPs.    

11.              So, after considering all above mentioned important issues, we came to the conclusion that the OPs liable for errors & negligence committed on their part.  It is admitted by the OPs that complainant firm had applied for extension of load on 4.4.2016.  It is also admitted by the OPs that the load was actually extended on 15.5.2018.  It is also admitted by the OPs that the electric connection No. B36-MRHT-20 was granted to the complainant firm under the self execution scheme.  Thus it is fully proved that the OPs have wrongly charged an amount of Rs. 7,01,454/- from the complainant on account of extension of load w.e.f. 2.12.2016 to 14.5.2018 and an amount of Rs. 3,66,750/- on account of cost of extension of service line from the distribution of main point of supply.  In our view, it is the bounden duty of the OPs to extend the load of the complainant within a period of one month from the date of deposit of fee for the same, but the OPs have failed in doing so, rather they have extended the load on 15.5.2018.  This fact has been admitted by the OPs in their written statement in Para No. 2 and hence, it is fully proved that the load was extended on 15.5.2018. 

12.              Moreover, the OPs have deliberately does not settle the requests of the complainant in time without any reason.  Therefore, in view of facts and circumstances mentioned above, complaint of the complainant is allowed and amount of Rs.7,01,454/- charged from the complainant on account of extension of load w.e.f. 2.12.2016 to 14.5.2018 and an amount of Rs. 3,66,750/- charged on account of cost of extension of service line from the distribution of main point of supply are hereby set aside being charged illegally.  The OPs are hereby directed to delete the amount of Rs. 7,01,454/- and Rs.3,66,750/- from complainant’s account.  The OPs are directed:-

i)        To refund the amount of Rs.7,01,454/- and Rs.3,66,750/- charged from the complainant together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization.

ii)       To pay Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to deficiency in service & mal trade practice on the part of OPs.

iii)      To pay Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only) as counsel fee as well as the litigation charges.

          The compliance of the order shall be made within 45 days from the date of the order, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest on the said amount @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till its actual realization.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.