Haryana

Karnal

CC/609/2021

Narinder - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O. (OP) - Opp.Party(s)

Jagmal Singh Chauhan

04 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No.609 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.27.10.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:04.06.2024

 

Narinder son of late Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, resident of house no.109, Gali no.2, Shanti Nagar, Karnal.

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

SDO (OP), City Sub Division, L-15, UHBVNL, Ram Nagar, Karnal.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri J.S. Chauhan, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Amit Kumar Kamboj, counsel for the OP.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that the an electricity connection bearing no.7708710000, old account no.2131401URN261984 was released by the OP in the name of mother of complainant namely Kamlesh Kumari (since deceased). The mother of complainant died in the year 2014 and after the death of his mother, complainant is user of the abovesaid connection and he has been paying the electricity charges regularly as per actual consumption. On 24.10.2020, complainant received a bill of Rs.988/- for the consumed units of 273.1 units showing the new reading 7801.32 and old reading 7528.22 and consumed units comes to 273.1, but the OP has issued the abovesaid bill for 302.9 showing the billed units and the status of the meter was shown ‘f” (faulty). If the meter was recording the units, how can the meter be  faulty. In this way, OP has claimed excess amount. Complainant has deposited the abovesaid bill under protest. On 29.04.2021, complainant received a bill of Rs.2709/- on average basis showing 307.89 units which includes the arrear of previous bill. The complainant has deposited the said amount under protest. The status of meter was shown faulty. On 30.06.2021, complainant received a bill of Rs.9749/- on average basis showing 307.86 units which includes the sundry charges of Rs.8559/-. The complainant has deposited the said amount of Rs.9749/- under protest. The status of meter was shown faulty. On 19.08.2021, the complainant received a bill of Rs.22066/- showing the consumption of 2984.53 units and the status of the meter was ok. But in fact, the OP has not visited the spot and no reading was recorded and a fake reading has been shown and the bill of exaggerated amount was issued to the complainant. The complainant went to the office of OP and requested the OP to rectify the bill and to issue the bill as per the actual consumption shown in the meter. But OP has not paid any heed to the request of the complainant. The OP has charged flat rate @ 7.10 per unit and the OP has not calculated the amount keeping in view the slab rate. On 14.10.2021, complainant received the impugned bill no.7708716044473 of Rs.71,730/- showing the consumption of 1346.31 units showing the arrear of Rs.22066/- and showing the sundry charges of Rs.40,859/- without any reason. The status of the meter was shown ok. The complainant went to the office of OP and requested him to rectify the said bill and to issue a fresh bill on the basis of actual consumption shown in the meter and to remove the illegal sundry and excess charges which were included in the bill, but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and threatened the complainant that in case the impugned amount of Rs.71730/- is  not deposited, the electricity supply of the complainant would be disconnected. Till 27.10.2021, the consumption shown in the meter comes to 4160 units but the OP has claimed the impugned bill of Rs.71730/- showing the consumption of 4330 units on 11.10.2021. But OP has not deducted the previous units of which the complainant has deposited the amount. The OP has also raised the demand of Rs.40858/- on account of sundry charges. It is further alleged that prior to issuing the bill of Rs.71730/- no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the complainant and OP has issued the impugned bill, arbitrarily and malafidely and not binding on the rights of the complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the meter installed in the house of complainant became faulty in the year 2017 and the last bill with actual units was sent to the complainant on 15.08.2017 showing the reading of 2451 units and thereafter the bills were sent to the complainant on average basis. The complainant never made a complaint in the office of the OP for replacement of his defective meter. As per the policy of the Haryana Government the smart meter were installed in Karnal town in the year 2020 and in that process on 19.12.2020 the meter of the complainant was replaced with smart meter. In this way the reading of 1222 days of the old meter could not came out due to faulty meter. On 01.08.2021 the reading of new meter was taken which was found to be 2771 units and that reading was of 225 days. Then the account of the complainant was overhauled by the OP as per the consumption shown by new meter. As per consumption shown by new meter the per day consumption comes to 12.31 units hence the bill for 1222 days (defective) period was found due towards the complainant. Thereafter, the OP adjusted the amount paid by him and after making all kind of adjustments an amount of Rs.71730/- was found due and recoverable from the complainant and for that amount the bill in question was raised from the complainant which is legal and valid and complainant is liable to pay the same but he instead of paying the same, filed present false and baseless complaint. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill receipt of  November 2020 Ex.C1, electricity bill of March, 2021 Ex.C2, copies of bills and receipts June 2021, July 2021, November 2021, December 2021, February 2021, April 2022 Ex.C3 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 20.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence last payment receipt Ex.OP1 and sundry no.242/168 dated 08.10.2021 and closed the evidence on 04.12.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainants, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that an electricity connection issued by the OP in the name of mother of complainant Kamlesh Kumari (since deceased) has been used by the complainant. Complainant is paying the electricity charges regularly. On 14.10.2021, OP issued a bill Rs.71,730/-, which is totally illegal, null and void and not as per actual consumption and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the electric meter of the complainant became fault in the year 2017 and thereafter the bills were sent to the complainant on average basis. As per the policy of the Haryana Government, on 19.12.2020, the old meter was replaced with the smart meter of the complainant. The account of the complainant was overhauled as per the consumption shown in the new meter and bill amount of Rs.71,730/- was found due and said bill was rightly sent to the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           OP has alleged that as per Policy of the Haryana Government, the smart meter were installed in the year 2020 and on 19.12.2020, the faulty meter of the complainant was replaced with a smart meter. The old meter had become faulty in the year 2017. The last reading bill was sent to the complainant on 15.08.2017 on the reading of 2451 units and thereafter bills were sent to the complainant on average basis. OP has alleged that old meter was faulty since 2017 and same was replaced with the smart meter on 19.12.2020. During that period, OP has sent the bills on average basis and complainant cleared all the bills. OP has also alleged that complainant never made complaint for replacement of  defective meter When it has come in the knowledge of the OP with regard to the defect of the meter in the year 2017, it was the duty of the OP to replace the same and for that complainant cannot be blamed.

11.           The disputed bill has been prepared on the basis of reading taken from the smart meter on 01.08.2021. The account of the complainant was overhauled by the OP as per consumption shown per day by the new meter. The consumption from the period 2017 to 19.12.2020 has been taken as per the meter reading dated 01.08.2021. It is not possible, the person who has consumed the electricity in the year 2021 also consumed the same in the year 2017. The possibility for consuming the more electricity in the year 2021 instead of 2017 cannot be ruled out. Generally, consumption of electricity is increased, while using the more appliance of electricity like Air Conditioner etc. Hence, the disputed bill has been sent by the OP on the basis of presumption and assumption, which is not admissible in the eyes of law. Thus, the disputed bill sent by the OP is totally arbitrarily and unjustified.

12.           Further, the disputed bill is for the period of the year 2017 to 19.12.2020. As per section 56 (2) of Electricity Act, 2003 no sum due from any consumer under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years. Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, is reproduced as under:-

“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 arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the license shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.”

 

13.           In this regard, we are placing reliance on the judgment titled as Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Banta Singh (deceased) through LRs in CM-4780 and 4782-C of 2021, date of decision 22.02.2023, wherein Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh has held that as per the Section 56(2) of Electricity Act, the limitation period of two years shall not start from the date when the connection of the defendant was made PDCO, rather this period shall start from the date when this amount was firstly demanded by the plaintiff and in this case the demand of this amount was made by the plaintiff vide legal notice dated 30.3.2010 Ex. P5. Although the limitation in this case is to be counted from 18.3.2010, when the connection of the defendant was disconnected. But if for the sake of arguments the limitation of two years is counted from the date of demand dated 30.3.2010 vide Ex.P5, although no ground is made out to calculate limitation from 30.3.2010, even then the suit is filed beyond two years from 30.3.2010 as the suit is filed on 7.5.2012. So, keeping in view the abovesaid provisions and the case law authority the present suit is time barred and same is not legally maintainable after the expiry of period of limitation of two years. We also placed reliance on the judgment titled as Assistant Engineer (D1) Ajmer Vidyut Versus Rahamatullah Khan Alias Rahamjulla, Civil Appeal No.1672 of 2020 (SC), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the word “due” has been used under Section 56(1) as well as under Section 56(2). The term “due” refers to the amount for which the demand is raised by way of a bill. The term “first due” would therefore imply when the demand is raised for the first time. The bill raised by the licensee company would be the starting point for the exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 56. The starting point of limitation would be from the date when the bill is raised by the licensee company. The bar of limitation is applicable only on the exercise of power of disconnection. As per sub-section (2) of Section 56, the bar of limitation would be two years from the date when the first bill is raised.

14.           Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments and facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the act of the OP while issuing the bill in question without adopting the proper procedure amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

15.           In view of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP not to recover the disputed bill amount of Rs71,730/- and any surcharge accrued thereupon from the complainant. In case of any amount out of disputed bill amount has been deposited by the complainant, same be refunded or adjusted in the account of the complainant. OP is also directed to issue the subsequent electricity bills as per the actual electricity consumption for the period which was not paid by the complainant due to the disputed bill amount remains, if any. On issuing fresh bills complainant is also bound to clear the same. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Dated:04.06.2024

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Suman Singh)

                        Member                               Member