STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No    :   215 of 2020

Date of Institution :   13.03.2020

Date of Decision   :   27.11.2020

U.H.B.V.N.L Ltd, City Divisional, Sub Division No.3, Rohtak through SDO.

                   Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

Ompati wife of Sh.  Ved Pal, resident of Vishal Nagar, Rohtak.

Respondent-Complainant

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

                             Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member                                                                                                                                      

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

                                                   O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN, J.

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

2.      UHBVNL, City Divisional, Sub Division No.3, Rohtak through SDO-opposite party has filed the present appeal for challenging the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak whereby complaint filed by complainant/respondent- Ompati was allowed and the opposite party directed not to charge an amount of Rs.38,182/- from the complainant.  The opposite party was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  In case the order was not complied within one month from the date of decision, the amount of Rs.8,000/- be adjusted in future bills of the complainant. 

2.      According to the complainant, she had taken the electricity connection for domestic purpose and paid the consumption bill to the opposite party without any delay.  On 25.06.2015 some officials of the opposite party visited her house and checked the electricity meter and found the same running in ‘OK’ condition and the seals were also found intact. Lateron, the officials of the opposite party again visited the house of the complainant and after checking the meter with their apparatus, requested to allow the opposite party to take meter with them as the meter installed was having some issues with display and assured that the meter with replaced display would be installed at the cost of the opposite party, as per the policy of the Government of Haryana and installed another meter.  The complainant was called by the opposite party and asked to sign some papers as a formality for the replacement of the display of meter.  The complainant had received bill dated 02.01.2019 wherein the opposite party demanded Rs.38,718/- inclusive of arrears amount of Rs.38,183/-.  The complainant being surprised on getting the huge bill approached the office of the opposite party and requested to correct the bill but the opposite party flatly refused.  The act of opposite party was illegal and thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  As such, the complainant filed the complaint stating therein that the opposite party be directed to not to demand the amount of Rs.38,183/- as the same was illegal, against the principles of natural justice and not to disconnect the meter in question and also to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony etc and Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite party put in appearance and filed the reply stating therein that the premises of the complainant were visited by the checking party and electricity meter was found installed inside the room.  The electricity meter was checked and it was found that consumer was indulging in disturbing the display unit of meter in order to make it defective so that the actual consumption might not be recorded as the meter display was found defective at the time of checking.  It was also submitted that the connection was obtained for domestic purpose but the electricity was being used for commercial purpose for running of guest house/café.  The premises of the complainant was checked in the presence of one Lalit Hooda son of Smt. Ompati.  The meter was checked and removed from the spot and packed into a cardboard box.  The complainant and checking party signed upon the checking report as well as cardboard box and the meter was referred to M & T Lab, Rohtak for checking.  A videography of the spot was also done and electricity supply was restored and a new meter installed in the premises of the complainant.  A joint checking report was prepared in the M & T Lab, Rohtak in the presence of Lalit Hooda on 26.06.2015.  during the checking, accuracy of the meter could not be checked as the display of the meter was found in off position.  While the terminal block was found intact but it seemed that the display of the meter was made intentionally off by using some external device without disturbing the seals.  The M & T Lab advised that in any dispute, the meter may be referred to the firm to know final reading and cause of display failure.  The complainant was using the electricity energy for commercial purpose instead of domestic and after considering the report, the internal audit department prepared a half margin report and an amount of Rs.38,183/- was added in the electricity bill of the consumer.  She was advised to deposit the same but instead of depositing the amount of electricity bill, the complainant filed the complaint on false and concocted story.  All other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and accordingly, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      In her evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit Exhibit CW1/A and documents Exhibits C-1 to C-4 whereas the opposite party tendered affidavit Exhibit RW1/A and documents Exhibits R-1 to R-2.

5.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the material aspects of the case, learned District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party not to charge the amount of Rs.38,182/- from the complainant.  The opposite party was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  The order was to be complied within one month from the date of decision and the amount of Rs.8,000/- would be adjusted in future bills of the complainant. 

6.      Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that as per electricity bill Exhibit C-12 on record for the period 20.10.2016 to 25.12.2016, the tariff category was mentioned as DS (Domestic Supply).  As such, the complainant was not using the electricity energy for any purpose other than domestic.  Even in the electricity bill Exhibit R-2 for the period from 30.06.2019 to 26.08.2019, the tariff category was again mentioned as DS (Domestic Supply).  The opposite party has also not issued any electricity bill to the complainant in NDS category.

7.      According to the opposite party, the officials of the opposite party prepared a half margin report and charged Rs.38,183/- from the complainant on account of using electricity energy as commercial.  The alleged amount was for the period 2014-2015 and was imposed in the bill dated 02.01.2019 i.e. after three years.  According to Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, no sum could be recovered from the consumer after the period of two years from the date when it became due.  As such, the demand in question was also barred in view of Section 56 of the Act.

8.      Above being the position, the State Commission is of the considered view that no fault can be found with the order of the learned District Consumer Forum whereby complaint preferred by complainant-Ompati was allowed.  The appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed.  

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.4,000/- 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.

UK