Haryana

StateCommission

A/398/2019

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM LAL - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

14 May 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.398 of 2019

                                                Date of the Institution: 24.04.2019

                                                Date of Decision: 14.05.2019

 

 

The SDO (OP) DHBVNL, Sub Division Mawai, Faridabad.

 

 

…..Opposite Party-Appellant

 

VERSUS

 

Ram Lal son of Shri Parmanand, resident of Village Tikawali, Tehsil and District Faridabad.

 

…Complainant-Respondent

 

 

 

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

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

 

                  

                                     

Present:-    Shri B.D. Bhatia, counsel for the appellant.

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.  

 

          The opposite party has filed the present appeal for challenging the order dated 19.09.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad, whereby complaint filed by the respondent-complainant was allowed and the opposite party directed to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- in all as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses; to withdraw the bill and update its records with respect to the electricity connection No.FF-15/0024.

2.      According to the complainant, he was holder of electricity connection bearing Account No.FF-15/0024, which was installed at a place used by the complainant as cattle yard. The complainant was regularly paying the bills for consuming the electricity and there were no dues against him. He applied for disconnecting the said connection in the year 2004 after paying the full and final amount to the opposite party. He was assured that the electricity connection would be disconnected and no further bill would be issued in future. However, the complainant was shocked and surprised when he received a bill of Rs.46,341/- from the opposite party towards the electricity connection on 10.12.2016 after he had got his electricity connection disconnected in the year 2006. The complainant met the opposite party in this regard but there was no satisfactory response. He also sent a legal notice to the opposite party but to no avail. Hence, the complaint wherein the complainant prayed for withdrawing the bill in question; paying Rs.2,000/- as expenses spent by him on making calls and personal visits to the office of opposite party; to pay Rs.30,000/- towards damages and Rs.21,000/- towards litigation expenses.

3.      When called upon the opposite parties put in appearance and submitted written version submitting that the complainant had concealed true and material facts from the learned District Forum. The electricity connection was under domestic category with 2.0 kilowatt sanctioned load. The complainant was regularly paying the electricity charges and his electricity connection was permanently disconnected in April, 2009. There was however an outstanding amount of Rs.46,341/- against the connection. On 09.12.2016, the complainant approached the office of the SDO and wished to deposit the outstanding amount.  The SDO got prepared the manual bill and marked it to the CA to check for surcharge waiver scheme because the scheme was in existence in December, 2016. After collecting the bill, the complainant never contacted the CA and accordingly the complainant could not get the benefit of the scheme. As such, the complainant was not entitled to get any relief. Hence, dismissal of the complainant was sought.

4.      As mentioned above, learned District Forum allowed the complaint and granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- in all as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant and also to withdraw the bill and update its records with respect to the electricity connection.

5.      Having heard learned counsel for the opposite party-appellant and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that the electricity connection issued in the name of the complainant was permanently disconnected in the month of April, 2009. However, the opposite party claimed that there was an outstanding of Rs.46,341/- against the connection, which it was entitled to receive/recover. However, the opposite party could not bring any material on the record to show that the bill for the said amount was ever presented to the complainant before April, 2009 or within two years from the date when the amount had become due. Therefore, as per Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the opposite party could not have recovered the aforementioned amount of Rs.46,341/- especially when a period of more than two years had elapsed from the date when such amount became first due.

6.      In view of the above, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, whereby the complainant was held entitled to recover Rs.5,000/- as compensation and the opposite party directed to withdraw the bill in question and update its record with respect to the electricity connection of the complainant.

7.      Resultantly, the appeal which is devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.2,500/- deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal be disbursed in favour of the complainant-respondent against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

Announced 14.05.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

D.R.