Haryana

StateCommission

A/568/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARVEEN KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT DHEER

16 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                             

                                                         First Appeal No.568 of 2015

Date of Institution: 07.07.2015

                                                           Date of Decision: 25.07.2016

 

S.D.O. O.P., Model Town, UHBVN, Ambala, Haryana.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Parveen Kumar S/o Sita Ram, R/o H.No.603, New Model Colony, Ambala City, Haryana.

                                                …..Respondent

 

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

                                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                                                          

Present:                     Shri  Rohit Dheer, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                                    Shri Brijender Kaushik, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

                                                               O R D E R

 

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. S.D.O. OP, Model Town, UHBVN, Ambala, Haryana, OP/appellant is in appeal against the Order dated 01.05.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Ambala, whereby the complaint of Parveen Kumar - Complainant has been allowed and the OP has been directed not to charge an amount of Rs.47721/- from the complainant which has been demanded vide bill dated 26.12.2009. Further, if any amount has already been deposited by the complainant qua the alleged arrears of Rs.47721/- imposed in bill darted 26.12.2009, the same shall be also refunded to him alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization and that the complainant was also entitled for the compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses etc.
2. In brief, according to the complainant, he was having a domestic electricity connection for his house from the OPs vide electricity connection bearing account No.MT15-2583-W (old No.DI-1934) and is making payment of the electricity being consumed by him regularly and never defaulted in making the payment of the bills received from the OPs on account of consumption of electricity. Due to fast running of the meter, a wrong bill was issued to him on 13.04.2007 by the OPs and ultimately the complainant submitted the application on 30.04.2007 on the basis of which the meter was checked by the staff of the OP on 12.05.2007 which was found defective. The same was changed vide MCO No.63/287 effected on 21.08.2007 and the account of the complainant was overhauled and as a consequence an amount of Rs.47038/- was deleted from the bill of the complainant in the Bill dated 17.09.2007 payable upto 27.09.2007, which was earlier for an amount of Rs.40607/- by adjusting the payment made in the excess by way of part payment in the previous bills. Thereafter, the said amount, which was withdrawn by the OPs has not been carried forward in the bills and the complainant is depositing the bills of the electricity being consumed by him regularly without any default. A bill dated 26.12.2009 payable upto 11.01.2010 for an amount of Rs.51629/- was received by the complainant in which an amount of Rs.47721/- has been again shows as sundry charges. On enquiry, the OPs stated that the said amount had been debited and demanded as advised by the Audit Party and threatened to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant in case the said amount was not deposited by him. Aggrieved by this deficiency in service, the complainant approached the District Forum for the Redressal of his grievance.
3. Justifying their action, the OPs pleaded that the complainant had moved an application before the OPs on 13.04.2007 to the effect that the energy meter of the complainant was defective on account of fast running. Acting upon the application, the OPs changed the meter vide MCO No.63/287 dated 27.07.2007 and as per request of the complainant. His electricity account was also overhauled for a period of six months immediately preceding the date, on which the meter was changed i.e. 21.08.2007. The complainant was not charged as per the reading recorded by the replaced meter rather charged as per the consumption of the complainant during the corresponding months of the previous year. So, as per the aforesaid adjustments, a sum of Rs.47721/- was credited to the account of the complainant. The plea of the OPs was however, rejected and the learned District Forum allowed the complaint on 01.05.2015 by granting the aforesaid relief.  
4. Against the impugned order dated 01.05.2015, the OPs / appellant have filed appeal before us reiterating their pleas raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It is evident from the record that the disputed bill was issued to the complainant on 13.04.2007 by the OPs and the application for the correction of the bill was submitted on 30.04.2007. The meter was checked on 12.05.2007 and when it was found defective, it was changed w.e.f. 21.08.2007 followed by a revised bill, by withdrawing the disputed amount of Rs.47,038/- sent on 17.09.2007 payable up to 27.09.2007. This having been done by the OP to correct their own mistake and to remove the deficiency in service, the OP could not issue another bill of Rs.51629/- on 26.12.2009, thereby committing the same mistake once again. The plea of the OPs that their Audit Party did not approve of their earlier action and had directed the inclusion of the same disputed amount was wholly without any legal justification. This is contrary to the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, according to which, no dues is recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due i.e. 13.04.2009 in the present case.
5. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid factual position, the appeal of the OPs is wholly devoid of force and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

6. The statutory amount of Rs.11,615/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

July 25th, 2016              Urvashi Agnihotri                                   R.K.Bishnoi,                                                     Member                                                Judicial Member                                                Addl. Bench                                          Addl.Bench

S.K.