Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/209/2013

Ashok Kumar Gupta S/o Devi Parsad - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O. City Sub Division ,UHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Aggarwal

09 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

                                                                   Complaint No.209 of 2013.

                                                                   Date of Institution:13.3.2013.

                                                                   Date of Decision:9.10.2017.

Ashok Kumar Gupta son of Sh.Devi Parsad, aged 50 years resident of 11/12-A, Professor Colony, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                         

                                                                                      …Complainant.                                     

                                     Versus

1.       SDO City Sub Division, UHBVNL, near Khalsa College, City Center Road, Yamuna Nagar.

2.       Executive Engineer, UHBVNL, Yamuna Nagar.

3.       Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Sec-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its Managing Director/Chairman.

                                                                                        ..Respondents.  

 

Before:        SH. SATPAL …………….    PRESIDENT

                    SH. S.C. SHARMA  …………………………MEMBER.

                    SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, ………...MEMBER

 

Present: Sh.Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.

            Sh.R.K.Kamboj, Advocate, for respondents.

 

ORDER   : (SATPAL, PRESIDENT).

1.                The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter the respondents shall be referred as OPs). 

2.                Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is consumer of the Ops having domestic electric connection No.YT43YT-25041Y and has been paying the bills regularly.  The complainant was astonished to receive the memo No.583, dated 8.5.2012 whereby the OP No.1 intimated that the above said account has been overhauled by the audit party and a sum of Rs.12045/- has been charged upon the said account due to replacement of defective and burnt meter vide half margin No.76, dated 20.4.2012, thereafter the complainant visited the office of the OP No.1 and enquired about the matter where it has been told that the aforesaid amount is pertaining to the bills for the month of 6/2006 for a sum of Rs.6221/- and for the period 8/2006 for a sum of Rs.5824/- as outstanding amount and in this regard, the complainant wrote a letter dated 24.7.2012, duly received by the Op No.1.  Moreover the amount raised above stands paid as per the billing record.  Nothing was due towards the complainant and the memo is quite illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law, even the amount as shown in the bill is beyond the law of limitation as envisaged u/s 56 of Indian Electricity Act 2003.  The operative part of section 56 (2) is reproduced as under for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Forum; “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied and the licensed shall not cut off the supply of the electricity”. 

3.                The OP has not givent the complete detail of memo dated 8.5.2012 which is illegal and against the provisions of law and as such the memo and bill showing therein the aforesaid amount in the column of sundry charges are liable to be quashed.  It has further been alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and thus prayed for directing the Ops to quash the above said memo No.583, dated 8.5.2012 and the amount shown in the column of sundry charges in the subsequent bills up to date and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceedings. 

4.                Upon notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint; the complainant is legally estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum.  The true facts are that the electricity connection bearing account No.YT43YT-252041Y was released in the name of consumer and the electricity meter of the complainant had become defective in 2006 and the meter was changed vide its MCO No.____ dated ________ and the account of the complainant has been overhauled by the internal Audit Department vide its half margin memo No._______ dated __________ and after overhauling the account of the complainant a sum of Rs.12045/- has been proposed by the audit party in the account of the complainant.  Hence, correct bills have been sent to the complainant as per the sale circular of the Nigam and the consumer is illegally bound to pay the said amount but in spite of depositing the said amount, the complainant has filed this present complaint. On merits the pleas taken by the complainant have been controverted and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

5.                To prove the case the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as annexure CW/A, documents copies of bills C.1 & C.2, copy of receipt of Rs.5824/- as annexure C.3, copy of memo No.583, dated 8.5.2012 as annexure C.4, copy of bill dated 27.7.2012 as annexure C.5. copy of memo no.583, dated 8.5.2012 as annexure C.6, copies of bills as annexure C.7 to C.9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

6.                The Ops have failed to tender any evidence, hence, the evidence of the Ops was closed by Court order vide order dated 25.9.2017.

7.                During the course of arguments the counsel for the complainant filed an application for placing the original bills on the file.  Heard.  In view the contents of the application and for the proper adjudication of the case and the application stands allowed as it will not cause any prejudice to the Ops.  The original bill dated 23.7.2006 is marked as annexure C.10, original receipt of Rs.5824/- as annexure C.11 and original bill dated 23.5.2006 is marked as annexure C.12.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. 

9.                After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, it is clear and admitted fact that the complainant is consumer of the Ops having domestic electric connection No.YT43YT252041Y.  The plea taken by the Ops that meter of the complainant was changed vide memo No._________, dated ________ and account of the complainant was overhauled vide memo ______, dated ______ is not tenable because of the fact that neither the Ops have mentioned the memos numbers in their written statement nor placed on file any copy of memos vide which the meter of the complainant was changed and the amount was charged.  It was  incumbent upon the officer who stamped and signed the written statement to look into the facts of the written statement however from the perusal of the written statement it is clear that the signing officer did not bother to go through the facts of written statement.  On the other hand, as per the version of the complainant the OP No.1 told him that the disputed amount was the arrears for the month of 6/2006 and 8/2006, whereas the complainant produced the bills for 5/2006 and 7/2006 along with receipts dated 6.6.2006 and 7.8.2006 from which it is clear that the bills for which the disputed amount has been charged by the Ops had already been deposited by the complainant.  Even otherwise, if the demand, is taken to be genuine and true, the same pertains to the period 2006 and the same has firstly been raised vide memo dated 8.5.2012 after a period of six years.  It is clearly mentioned in Section 56 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act that, “no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when the sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges of electricity”.  In the present case, this fact is clear that the amount pertains to the year 2006 and the same has been raised first time in the year 2012 after 6 years, hence, the amount raised vide memo dated 8.5.2012 is not recoverable and the same is liable to be quashed being time barred as per section 56(2) of the Electricity Act. 

10.              Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant by qashing the memo No.583, dated 8.5.2012 (annexure C.4) through which an amount of Rs.12045/- has been demanded and if any amount is found deposited by the complainant towards this amount the same be refunded to the complainant.  Further, the Ops are directed to pay Rs.3300/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as cost of proceedings.  Order be complied within one month from the date of preparation of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs.  File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court:9.10.2017.                 

                                                                             (SATPAL)

                                                                             PRESIDENT.

 

 (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                  (S.C. SHARMA)

  MEMBER.                                                   MEMBER.