Haryana

StateCommission

A/764/2014

SDO UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prem - Opp.Party(s)

10 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.764 of  2014

Date of the Institution: 29.08.2014

Date of Decision: 10.03.2016

 

1.      SDO (OP) UHBVNL, Sub Division, Assandh, District Karnal.

2.      UHBVNL, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

                                                                   .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Prem S/o Sh.Soran R/o Village Pidhana,Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

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

                    Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.B.D.Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants.

                    Mr.Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It alleged by the complainant  that he was having domestic electricity connection No.AP-24-1352-N  and paying bills regularly.  Opposite party (O.P.) No.2 issued notice bearing No.3101 dated 14.12.2010 to him alleging that another connection was running in his name and  Rs.1,24,863/- were outstanding.  He further alleged that during family partition, the said house and meter fell to the share of Ved Parkash who died on 05.11.2000 and wife of Ved Parkash left the house.  In the year 2004, the officials of O.Ps. removed the meter by jumping inside the house.  O.P.No.2 sent another bill dated 13.06.2011 for Rs.1,35,101, which was illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that  on 14.12.2010 JE checked the premises of the complainant and was found using the electricity connection bearing No.AP-24-1352.  Notice was served upon him but he failed to pay the outstanding   amount of Rs.124863/-.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      After hearing both the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal allowed the complaint vide order dated 22.07.2014 and directed as under:-

“Therefore, we direct the OP to withdraw the said demand of Rs.1,37,128/- (as shown in the bill dated 15.07.2011 Ex.C5) from the complainant.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.2200/- for the legal fee and litigation expenses. The present complaint is accepted accordingly.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the opposite parties-appellants have preferred this appeal. 

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant-O.P. vehemently argued that on 14.12.2010 JE of the concerned area checked the premises of the complainant and found that he was using connection No.AP-24-1352.  On the basis of his report No.3101 dated 14.12.2010 notice Ex.C-11 was issued to him to put forward his case within seven days.  When he did not represent in any manner the amount of connection No. AP-24-1352 was added in the bill of this connection.  Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not applicable in this case because the fact of this connection came to their notice on 14.12.2010 and bill was issued on 15.07.2011.

7.      This argument is devoid of any force. As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that both the connections are in the name of the complainant.  It is no where proved on the file that some other officer was looking   after the other connection.  Both the connections are within the Sub-division of Assand, which is clear from the notice Ex.C-11. Had the O.P. being vigilant enough the other connection could have been detected there and then.  As per Ex.C-1 the arrears in the year 1997 were Rs.379/- only, but, the O.P. kept mum for all these years.  It has raised demand for the first time in the year 2011 which is clearly barred as per section 56 (2) of the Act.  Issuance of notice does not extend the period of limitation as opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in Raja Ram Maize products etc. Vs. Industrial Court of M.P. and other AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1676.

8.      This argument is no avail. The findings of the learned District Forum are well reasoned, based on law and facts and  impugned order dated 22.07.2014 cannot be set aside.

9.      Hence the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

10.    The opposite parties-appellants may fix the responsibility of the concerned official, who was responsible for this lapse and the loss suffered by department may be recovered from the concerned employee/employees as per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in  Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 and Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K.Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed  in Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K.Gupta (Supra) as under:-

“When the Court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man.  It is the tax payer’s money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law.  It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund ‘immediately’ but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behavior by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.”

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.1100/- deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and due verification as per rules.

 

 

March 10th, 2016                    Urvashi Agnihotri                    R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                           Member                                   Judicial Member                                                                      Addl. Bench                            Addl.Bench                

S.K.