Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/377/2014

Rajinder Singh S/o.Chanan singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O. U.H.B.V.N Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ram Karan

01 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 377 of 2014.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 04.09.2014

                                                                                          Date of decision: 01.12.2016

 

Rajinder Singh, aged about 60 years, son of Shri Chanan Singh, resident of village Bhud Kalan, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                         …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. SDO OP. Sub Divn. (UHBVNL), Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagarr.
2. XEN, OP Division, UHBVNL, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
3. Uttri Haryana Bijli, Vitran Nigam Ltd, Sector 6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula, through its MD.

 

                                                                                                                                  ...Respondents

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

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

 

Present:           Sh.RK Kamboj, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. Zile Singh, Advocate for respondents.

ORDER

 

1                      The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is having an electricity connection bearing account No.Y33-JH175336M for domestic purpose and paying all the electricity Bill regularly without any default. The complainant was astonished to see the bill dated 24.08.2014 of Rs.81,590/- issued by the respondent (hereinafter referred as OPs Nigam). Upon which, the complainant visited the office of the OPs and requested so many times to correct the same as per actual bill consumption charges and also as per meter reading but they refused to do so. Rather, they threatened that if the complainant will not pay aforesaid amount he will be implicated in false and frivolous litigations and his electricity supply shall be disconnected. Lastly prayed for directing the OPs to correct the Bill dated 24.08.2014  as per actual consumption and not to disconnect the electricity supply and also not to recover the amount of Rs.81590/- and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint; complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has no locus standi or any cause of action; complainant has concealed the true and material facts and on merit it has been mentioned that the premises of the complainant was checked by the OPs on 24.06.2014 and found that meter bearing account No.JH-17/0524, which was in the name of Sukhvinder Singh son of Joginder Singh has been removed due to defaulting amount of Rs.81364/- from the premises of complainant and defaulting amount of that meter has been transferred in the account of present meter i.e. JH-17/5336 installed in the same premises in the name of complainant and videography has also been done at this spot in the presence of the complainant. Beside the above defaulting amount, the bill of the current consumption charges has also been included and the complainant is liable to pay the same and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure Ex. CW/A and photocopy of bill bearing No.3790 dated 24.08.2014 amounting of Rs.81590/- as Annexure C-1, original bills as Annexure C-2 to C-5 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Ashish Chopra, SDO (OP), UHBVN Ltd. as Annexure RW/A and sale circular bearing No.U-03/2013  as Annexure R1, Account statement pertaining to the account of Rajinder Singh, Complainant as Annexure R2, checking report as Annexure R3, letter/memo No.1850 dated 10^th July, 2014 as Annexure R4, report as Annexure R5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant is having an electricity connection bearing Account No.Y33-JH/175336M for the domestic purpose. The only grievances of the complainant is that an amount of defaulting amount of Rs.81364/- of one Sukhwinder Singh son of Shri  Joginder Singh has been illegally and wrongly added as sundry charges in the account of the complainant vide bill No.3790 dated 24.08.2014 (Annexure C-1) whereas the OPs Nigam has no right to charge the same from the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that even OPs Nigam has not disclosed in their reply that the alleged amount of Rs.81364/- was related to which period. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that no prior notice was issued by the OPs Nigam to the complainant and without giving any opportunity of personal hearing the alleged defaulting amount of Rs.81364/- of one Sukhwinder Singh has been wrongly added in the impugned bill and lastly prayed for quashing the same.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued that the defaulting amount of Rs.81364/- of the account No.JH-17/ 0524 which was in the name of one Sukhwinder Singh has been rightly added in the bill of the complainant being same premises and the complainant is liable to pay the same. Hence, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and requested for dismissal of the complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs Nigam as they have wrongly and illegally added the defaulted amount of Sukhvinder Singh son of Joginder Singh in the bill of the complainant and no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the complainant. Further, the OPs have also failed to disclose the period for which the alleged amount was related. Even, the OPs have also not placed on file the account statement or any cogent evidence from which, this Forum can consider that the alleged amount Rs.81364/- was pending against said Sukhwinder Singh. Further, the OPs have also failed to prove that complainant Rajinder Singh has ever  used the electricity through the account of said Sukhwinder Singh bearing No.JH-17/0524. Even the OPs have also not placed on file any documents showing that whether any recovery notice or any steps were taken to recover alleged account of Rs.81364/-  from that person Sukhvinder Singh son of Joginder Singh. We have perused the electricity bill (Annexure C-3) which is of the period 09.07.2012 and other bills for January, 2014, May, 2014 and July, 2014 (Annexure C2 , C-4 & C5). But in these bills no such amount has been added by the OPs Nigam. Meaning thereby that the alleged amount of Rs.81364/- is relating to the period prior to July, 2012.

                        On the other angle also, the OPs Nigam cannot charge the amount after a period of two years as per Section 56(2) wherein it has been mentioned that:

“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 licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity”.

10.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs not to charge the alleged defaulted amount of Rs.81364/- from the complainant along with surcharge, if any and overhaul the account of the complainant and issue fresh bill.  If any, amount has been deposited out of the alleged amount the same be refunded to the complainant within a period of 30 days. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court: 01.12.2016.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                           DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER