STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No.     20 of 2021

Date of Institution:  05.02.2021

Date of Decision:    12.02.2021

1.      S.D.O (OP) Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Division, Y43, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.

2.      Executive Engineer (OP),  Sub Division, Yamuna Nagar, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, 66 KV, Sub Division, Saharanpur Road, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.

3.      Managing Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, C-6, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula.

Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

Ravi Kumar Gupta, aged about 75 years, son of Shri Jai Kishan, Resident of House No.1-CR, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.

 Respondent-Complainant

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

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

Present:     Shri B.S. Negi, counsel for the appellants.

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.      The opposite parties, namely, the S.D.O (OP), Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Division, Y43, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar, the Executive Engineer (OP), Sub Division, Yamuna Nagar, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, 66 KV, Sub Division, Saharanpur Road, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar and the Managing Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, C-6, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula have filed the instant appeal for challenging the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari whereby complaint preferred by complainant-Ravi Kumar Gupta under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was accepted, impugned bill (Exhibit C-7) for the period 13.04.2018 to 12.06.2018 issued on 02.07.2018 was quashed to the extent of including the previous arrears of Rs.24,132.74 and the opposite parties were jointly and severally held liable to make payment of punitive damages by way of compensation in the sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant and the opposite parties would either refund the amount to the complainant or adjust in the future bill by way of issuing credit voucher.  It was further ordered that the primary liability of opposite party No.1 being the officer concerned, which shall comply with the order within a period of 40 days from the date of order and in default thereof, compensation in the sum of Rs.5,000/- would carry an interest @ 7% per annum from the date of order till actual realization.

3.      According to the complainant, he was having domestic electricity connection bearing meter Account No.YT251128 and thus a ‘consumer’ of electricity supply of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited.  The Nigam issued a bill (Exhibit C-7) for the period from 13.04.2018 to 12.06.2018 on 02.07.2018 and in the said bill, the Nigam included Rs.24,132.74 as arrears.  The inclusion of the amount in dispute in the bill (Exhibit C-7) made the complainant aggrieved, who felt necessitated to file the complaint.

4.      Upon notice, the opposite parties put in appearance and filed their written version refuting the stand of the complainant with regard to negligence and deficiency in service.  It was however admitted that the complainant was a ‘consumer’ of the Nigam.  The complainant had electricity meter account bearing old No.Y43YT251128N and new account No.21533YT251128 in the name of Ravi Kumar Gupta, which was overhauled by the internal audit party and vide half margin report No.120 dated 27.02.2017, the meter of the complainant was found defective since 4/14 to 2015 which was changed in 2/15.  The meter account was overhauled on the basis of new meter consumption.  As per the report of the audit party (Exhibit R1), the amount in dispute was included in the impugned bill by way of their justified act.

5.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, learned District Consumer Forum accepted the complaint and quashed the impugned bill (Exhibit C-7).  The opposite parties were held jointly and severally liable to make payment of punitive damages in the form of compensation of Rs.5,000/- and opposite party No.1 directed to comply with the order within a period of 40 days from the date of order or in default, the compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- would carry an interest @ 7% per annum from the date of order till realization.

6.      Learned counsel for the opposite parties-appellants has stated that the electricity meter installed at the residence of the complainant was overhauled by the internal audit party and vide half margin report dated 27.02.2017, it was found that the electricity meter was defective since 4/14 to 2015, which was changed in 2/15.  The meter account of the complainant was overhauled on the basis of consumption reflected in the new meter.  As per the report of the audit party, the amount in dispute was included in the impugned bill by way of their justified effect.  As such, there was no deficiency in service.  Therefore, the appeal be accepted and the impugned order passed by learned District Consumer Forum be set aside.

7.      Having heard learned counsel for the opposite parties-appellants and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that the electricity consumption meter installed at the residence of the complainant was said to be defective since 4/14 to 2/15.  No document has been placed on record by the opposite parties which could show that the previous meter of the complainant was defective or it was changed on the complaint of the complainant or during inspection by the officials of the Nigam.  According to the opposite parties, prior to the period in between 4/14 to 2/15, the complainant was not making the payment of electricity bill on average basis.  Even if it had been found that the electricity supply meter of the complainant was defective and accordingly, it was changed in the month of February, 2017, the opposite parties were having sufficient time to overhaul his account.  However, the overhauling of the account took place on 17.02.2017 and the amount in dispute was included in the bill, which was issued on 02.07.2018.  There was no prompt overhauling after 02.02.2015.  The overhauling took place on 17.02.2017 when a period of two years had already expired.  As per Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, no sum due from any consumer was recoverable after the period of two years from the date when sum became first due.  Moreover, from the report (Exhibit R-1), it was not reflected that any notice was given to the complainant affording an opportunity of hearing before including the amount in dispute as arrears.  As such, the action of the opposite parties in including Rs.24,132.74 as arrears was illegal, which amounted to negligence and deficiency in service on their part.  As such, the bill (Exhibit C-7) deserved to be quashed.  At the same time, the opposite parties were liable to be burdened with punitive damages on account of over head losses to the complainant including a sum of Rs.5,000/- liable to be awarded.

8.      Resultantly, there is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.3,200/- deposited by the appellants while filing the appeal be released in favour of the complainant-Ravi Kumar Gupta against proper receipt and identification subject to appeal/revision, if any, but in accordance with law.  

  U.K.