Haryana

Sonipat

CC/478/2015

Sanjay Kumar S/o Manphool Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mannu Malik

04 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.478 of 2015

                                Instituted on:24.12.2015                                             Date of order:04.07.2016

 

Sanjay Kumar son of Manphool Singh, r/o Lal Darwaja, near Harijan Chopal, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

                                                ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

SDO  UHBVN Ltd.  City Sub Division, Sonepat.                                                                         ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.  Mannu Malik Adv. for complainant.

           Sh.  Amit Balyan, Adv. For respondent.                 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

           J.L.GUPTA, MEMBER.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that he is consumer of the respondent vide connection no.6038030000 (old account on.2251201UCT191990.  The respondent have sent a bill to the complainant for Rs.34273/- in which an amount of Rs.34060/- has been charged under the head of sundry charges/allowances, which is wrong and illegal since no amount is due against the complainant and he has deposited the entire bills regularly.  The complainant has requested the respondent so many times to rectify the said wrong and illegal bill, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the bill dated 10.12.2015 issued to the complainant for Rs.34273/- is legal, genuine and as per instructions of the Nigam.  Out of Rs.34273/-, Rs.34028/- is assessed as half margin as per audit report book and memo no.4510/41 and the complainant is legally liable to pay the same to the respondent. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        In the present case, the complainant has alleged the demand of Rs.34060/- of the respondent to be wrong and illegal since no amount was due against him and he was depositing the bills of electricity energy with the respondent regularly.  He has further submitted that the sundry charges cannot be charged without show cause notice to the complainant.

          In support of his contention, he has relied upon the case law titled as UP Power Corp. Ltd. and others Vs. Vimla Devi and others, 2016(1) Civil Court Cases page 819(SC).

          He has further relied upon the case law titled as UHBVN Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Sharma, 2016(2) CLT page 429 wherein it has been held that sundry charges cannot be charged without show cause notice to consumer.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the bill dated 10.12.2015 issued to the complainant for Rs.34273/- is legal, genuine and as per instructions of the Nigam.  Out of Rs.34273/-, Rs.34028/- is assessed as half margin as per audit report book and memo no.4510/41 and the complainant is legally liable to pay the same to the respondent. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondent.

 

 

          Further we have perused the document Ex.R1, wherein the consumption analysis (July 2011 to June 2014 i.e. 22.4.11 to 22.3.2014) and audit observations w.e.f. 9/12 to 6/14 has been mentioned.  It is also mentioned that proposed recovery on account of deficit in energy units charged in view of overhauling not being done after meter replacement of defective meters and billing month is mentioned as 7/12, bill date 10.7.2012, bill no.3925, billed units 200, billed amount Rs.830.40, units to be charged 200, units short charged ) and recovery amount is mentioned as 34028/-.

 

          But in our view, this demand of Rs.34028/- from the complainant vide bill dated 10.12.2015 is not tenable in the eyes of law keeping in view of Section 56(2) of Indian Electricity Act.

 

          In our view, Section 56(2) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 is fully applicable to the case in hand and the observation of this Forum is fully fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, rendered in First appeal no.54 of 2014 decided on 29.1.2014 titled as SDO Versus St. Hoshiyari Devi wherein it is specifically held that “No sum could be recovered from the consumer after the period of two years from the date when it became first due.”.

 

           Thus,  we hereby held the demand of Rs.34028/- from the complainant vide bill dated 10.12.2015 to be wrong and illegal and the complainant is not liable to pay the same to the respondent.  Any amount deposited by the complainant with the respondent against the wrong and illegal demand of Rs.34028/-, is directed to be paid to the complainant and the same be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

 

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the

parties free of cost.

 

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati) (JL Gupta)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF  Member DCDRF                    DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:04.07.2016