Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/880/2013

Kehar Singh S/o Sada Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O. UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Joginder Gujjar

14 Mar 2016

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                               Complaint No…880  of 2013.

                                                                                               Date of institution: 09.12.2013

                                                                                               Date of decision: 14.03.2016

Kehar Singh aged about 70 years son of Shri Sada Ram resident of village; Panjeton, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                              …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. S.D.O., UHBVNL, Sub Division, Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Executive Engineer, U.H.B.V.N.L. Yamuna Nagar.
3. The Chairman, U.H.B.V.N.L. Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

                                                                                                                                                                                             …Respondents

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. J.K.Gurjar Advocate, counsel for complainants.  

               Sh. Rajinder Kumar Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for respondents.                 

 

ORDER

1                      Complainant Kehar Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to waive of the illegal amount of Rs. 15000/- from the electricity bill of the tubewell connection and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant are that the complainant is an agriculturist and having a tubewell electricity connection of 5BHP in his fields since 1964 to water/irrigate his land bearing account No. MFK-0086 issued by the OPs. In the year 1975 approximately, complainant had got enhanced load of said tubewell electricity motor up to 7.5 BHP and since then complainant was using the 7.5 BHP Motor. Complainant is paying the bills of the electricity connection in question to the OPs regularly and continuously without any default on the flat rate basis at the rate of 263/-. In the month of November 2003, the OPs issued an electricity bill of Rs. 15530/- bearing bill issue date as 13.11.2013 which is quite wrong. The OPs imposed Rs. 15,000/- in the bill illegally by showing the same as sundry charges/allowances whereas neither the OPs sent any bill of the said electricity connection of more than Rs. 263/- nor the complainant made any illegal work or defaulted to pay the bill on flat rate basis. For a long time complainant was paying the electricity bills on flat rate basis of Rs. 263/- each. After receiving the bill dated 13.11.2013, complainant approached the OP No.1 and moved an application dated 2.12.2013 to the OP No.1 and requested to waive the illegal amount of Rs. 15000/- from the said bill so that complainant may be able to deposit the remaining bill amount but the OP No.1 did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant rather the OP No.1 threatened the complainant to disconnect his electricity tubewell connection. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi, estopped by his own act and conduct, complainant has concealed the true and material facts and on merit it has been stated that true facts are that the electricity connection bearing account No. MFK-86AP was released in the name of complainant for agriculture purposes and on dated 17.7.2010, the official of the Nigam checked the tubewell of the complainant and found that the electricity motor of 12.5 BHP in place of 5 BHP was running/functioning at the spot. Hence, there was unauthorized use of electricity energy at the tubewell of the complainant and in this regard checking report vide LL-1 was prepared but the penalty was not imposed due to verify sanction load recommended by J.E. Thereby a sum of Rs. 15000/- have been imposed as penalty upon the complainant. The bill amount was charged as per sale circular of the Nigam and the complainant is legally bound to pay the same. Complainant instead of depositing the said imposed amount has filed the present complaint only to harass the OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint being there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of application dated 02.12.2013 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of bill dated 13.11.2013 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of bill dated 12.10.2013 as Annexure C-3, Photo copies of receipt of bills depositing and photo copies of bills Annexure C-4 to C-13 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Ashish Chopra, SDO (OP) UHBVNL, as Annexure RW/A and documents such as photo copy of checking report LL-1 dated 17.07.2010 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of Audit report dated 13.12.2013 as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.  

6                      We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully. The counsel for the complainant firm reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OPs reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.                     The only plea of the complainant is that the complainant was having an agriculture tubewell connection bearing account No. MFK-0086 since 1964 with 5 BHP sanctioned load and paying all the bills regularly and nothing was due. In 1975 approximately, complainant had got enhanced load of said electricity motor from 5 BHP to 7.5 BHP and since then he is using the motor of 7.5 BHP and paying the bills at flat rate basis amounting to Rs. 263/- per month but the OPs in November 2013 issued an electricity bill dated 13.11.2013 of Rs. 15530/- in which an amount of Rs. 15000/- was imposed as penalty on account of alleged checking report LL-1 dated 17.7.2010 (Annexure R-1) and subsequent Audit Report dated 12.11.2013 (Annexure R-2) which is totally illegal and liable to be quashed and draw our attention towards electricity bill dated 13.11.2013 Annexure C-2 and another electricity bill dated 12.10.2013 as Annexure C-3 and further receipts and bills Annexure C-4 to C-13 in which sanctioned load of 7.5 BHP has mentioned and an amount of Rs. 15000/- has been shown as sundry charges in the bill dated 13.11.2013 (Annexure C-2).

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs hotly argued that tubewell connection of the complainant was checked by the officials of the OPs which is evident from the checking report LL-1 dated 17.07.2010 and a load of 12.5 BHP was found at the spot but the penalty was not imposed due to verify the sanction load recommenced by J.E. as per checking. However, later on account of the complainant was audited by the Pvt. Audit Party for the period of 3/2010 to 6/2012 and a penalty of Rs. 15000/- i.e. 12.5 BHP-5BHP=7.5 BHP x Rs.2000 per BHP, as the penalty has been rightly imposed upon the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that the arguments advanced by the counsel for the OPs is not tenable as the OPs have failed to file any affidavit in support of their checking report LL-1 dated 17.07.2010 of any lineman or J.E. or even any officials of the checking party that they had found 12.5 BHP load at the time of inspection of the tubewell connection of the complainant. Further, we have perused the copy of checking report LL-1 dated 17.07.2010 (Annexure R-1) wherein we found that neither any signature of any witness has been obtained nor any remark has been mentioned on the report regarding refusal to sign by the complainant or any person/witness. The report LL-1 bears only signature of one person. Even this checking was also not carried out in the presence of the complainant as this report does not bear the signature of the complainant. Further, the penalty of Rs. 15000/- has been imposed by the OPs after a period of 3 years 4 months i.e. checking was done on 17.07.2010 and penalty was imposed on 12.11.2013 which is evident from Annexure R-1 and R-2, which is totally illegal. No circular or guidelines have been filed by the OPs according to which the alleged penalty have been imposed on the complainant by the OPs. Further, the OPs have totally failed to file any documentary evidence to prove the sanctioned load of the tubewell connection of the complainant. The plea of the OPs itself is contradictory as the OPs has charged the penalty for 7.5 BHP at the rate of 2000/- per BHP after deducting 5BHP from 12.5.BHp whereas from the perusal of Bills Annexure C-2 to C-13, it is evident that the sanctioned load of the tubewell connection of the complainant was 7.5 BHP not 5 BHP. Hence, on this account also the calculation of Rs. 15000/- as penalty does not seem to be genuine. Moreover, as per Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the OPs cannot charge any amount after two years which is reproduced as under :

                        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 of the supply of the electricity.

10.                   In this way the OPs have wrongly added an amount of Rs. 15000/- in the account of complainant by violating the provision of Electricity Act as the meter was checked on 17.7.2010 and the  aforesaid amount has been added in the bill dated 13.11.2013 under head of arrears/sundry charges. As such, the complainant is entitled for relief qua waiving off the amount of Rs. 15000/- levied in the Bill issued in the month of November, 2013.

11                    After going through the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Ops totally failed to file any cogent evidence in support of their version and has illegally imposed the amount of Rs. 15000/-. As such, we have no option except to allow the present complaint.

12                    Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and quash the amount of Rs. 15000/- imposed as average adjustment in the bill dated 13.11.2013. Further, if any, amount has already been deposited by the complainant qua the alleged arrears of Rs. 15000/- imposed in the bill dated 13.11.2013, the same be also adjusted in the future bills.  Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 14.03.2016.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA )          

                                                                                                MEMBER