Haryana

StateCommission

A/538/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATPAL - Opp.Party(s)

AMARDEEP HOODA

11 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      538 of 2015

Date of Institution:      19.06.2015

Date of Decision :      11.09.2015

 

1.     Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

 

2.     Sub Divisional officer, Sub Division (OP), Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Pipli, District Kurukshetra.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Sat Pal s/o Sh. Bharat Ram, Resident of House No.1091, Sector-5, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri Amardeep Hooda, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Raghav Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated April 17^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Kurukshetra, in complaint No.212 of 2014.

2.      Satpal-complainant-respondent was having domestic electric connection bearing account No.K-22KP500215M. The officials of  Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘UHBVNL’), Pipli, District Kurukshetra, checked the above said connection of the complainant on July 14^th, 2007. The opposite parties vide notice bearing memo No.3034 dated 16.07.2007 demanded penalty of Rs.6134/- from the complainant and the same was deposited by him. In view of report of audit party dated 28.05.2010, the opposite parties vide notice bearing memo No.1699 dated 04.07.2014 (Exhibit C-3) raised demand of Rs.45,515/- from the complainant on the ground that the account of the complainant was overhauled by the audit party, as per Sales Circular 54/2007 dated 13.07.2007 and sum of Rs.45,515/- was outstanding against the complainant.

3.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint being contested by the opposite parties, was accepted by the District Forum vide impugned order directing the opposite parties as under:-

“……we accept the present complaint and set aside the impugned bill dated 4.9.2014 to the extent of amount of Rs.45,515/- demanded from the complainant by the ops and direct the ops not to raise demand of said sum of Rs.45,515/- from the complainant in future.”

4.      The question which requires consideration is as to whether the disputed amount of Rs.45,515/- was not recoverable being barred in view of Section 56(2) of Electricity Act, 2003?

5.      Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which reads as under:-

“(2) 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.”

6.      A reading of the aforesaid provision shows that no sum could be recovered from the consumer after the period of two years from the date when it became first due. In the instant case, the disputed amount related to the year 2007 and therefore, the said amount could not be recovered after 2009. Even audit people pointed out the amount on 28.05.2010. So, the demand raised by the opposite party in the year 2014, that is, after seven years was illegal. Thus, the demand raised by the opposite parties was barred in view of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act.

7.      In view of the above, the order passed by the District Forum requires no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

 

Announced 11.09.2015

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL