Haryana

StateCommission

A/664/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAVEESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

21 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.664 of 2016

Date of the Institution:20.07.2016

Date of Decision: 21.08.2017

 

1.      The S.D.O Model Town, Sub-Division, Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

2.      The Executive Engineer, (OP), Divisional UHBVNL, Yamuna Nagar.

3.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

                                                                                       .….Appellants

Versus

 

Raveesh Kumar son of Sh. Dharam Pal, R/o House No.19-B, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                             .….Respondent

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

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mrs.Alka Joshi, Advocate for the appellants.

                    Mr. K.L. Saini, Advocate for respondent.

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      The S.D.O. Model Town, Sub- Division, Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Ors. are in appeal against the Order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Raveesh Kumar has been allowed, by directing the OP not to charge the disputed amount of Rs.25,711/- alongwith surcharge upto date and by directing that if any amount has been deposited against the disputed demand,  the same be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant.

2.      Briefly stated, the complainant was owner and using an electricity connection bearing account No.YT25/2079 in his house which was used for domestic purpose. The complainant was making the payments of electricity bills regularly as per actual consumption of the electricity, as per meter reading duly raised by the OPs from time to time and nothing was outstanding against him of this connection. However, the complainant received bill No.9955 dated 11.07.2012 from the OP No.1 whereby the OP No.1 had added a sum of Rs.35385/- in the bill of the complainant, on account of defaulting amount of some disconnected connection of 2004. According to the complainant, as per specific provision of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003 amount of more than two years old could not be recovered by the Electricity Department, hence, the charging of Rs.35,385/- after a gap of more than 9 years was illegal, arbitrarily and unlawful. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum for the refund of the aforesaid amount alongwith interest.

3.      In their reply, OPs pleaded that earlier the connection bearing account No.YT25/75 was released in the name of Pyare Lal whereas the said electricity connection disconnected due to defaulting in amount of Rs.25,711/- which stood against the account No.YT-25/75, was added to the account of the complainant. As at the time of applying for the connection, an affidavit to pay any due amount, in the same premises was given to the complainant, he was very much liable to pay the disputed bill amount. However, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas of the OPs and allowed the complaint by awarding the aforesaid relief to the Complainant.  

4.      Against the impugned Order, the OPs/appellants have filed the present appeal before us reiterating their same pleas as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record, from the perusal whereof it is evident that the demand of the old bill is certainly more than two years, hence, in utter violation of the mandate provided in Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act. Therefore, the conclusion of the learned District Forum regarding the illegality of the demand and entitlement of the complainant for the refund of the same are certainly in accordance with law. The additional plea raised by the appellant regarding the filing of the affidavit of the complainant at time of the applying for the electricity connection, regarding owning the liability of the previous bill, if any, is also without any basis. Firstly, the affidavit does not bear any date on which it was alleged to have been submitted by the complainant and secondly the statutory protection granted by Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act can not be taken away by mutual agreement between the parties. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs, as we entirely agree with the detailed and well reasoned order of the District Forum.

 

5.      Statutory amount of Rs.12,856/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.

 

August 21st, 2017

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.