Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 77.       

                                                           Instituted on     : 31.10.2017.

                                                          Decided on       : 20.11.2018.

Harish Ahlawat son of Late Sh. Parkash son of Jug Lal resident of House No.2252/4, New Rajendera Colony, Bhiwani Road, Rohtak, being beneficiary of Electricity connection bearing No.K5521932 in the name of deceased Parkash. Age 35 years, Mob 08816889000.

                                                                    ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.(UHBVNL), OP Sub Division R43 No.III Rohtak, City Division, Rohtak, through its Sub Divisional Officer, Rohtak.

……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Vivek Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Ravin Commercial Accountant with Sh.Sandeep Jain ALM for OP.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that electricity connection No.K5521932 was installed by the respondent in the name of father of the complainant namely Parkash at his premises for DS connection. That the father of the complainant had died on 10.03.2010 and after his death complainant is using the said connection. That the OP issued an illegal bill dated 31.12.2016 amounting to Rs.14184/- due date 17.01.2017 showing the electricity connection as NDS connection for which complainant is not liable to pay the same. That  complainant requested the OP to correct the bill and to treat his connection as DS but inspite of rectifying the bill, opposite party issued further bill of Rs.26126/-                                That the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to treat the electric connection of complainant as Domestic connection in place of NDS, to issue the bill as per actual consumption and not to recover the amount of alleged bill of Rs.26126/- during the pendency of complaint and also to pay compensation of Rs.20000/- on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                          On notice, opposite party appeared and filed its written statement submitting therein that it is incorrect that respondent issued arbitrary and illegal bill dated 31.12.2016. That the bill issued by the respondent is correct and legally chargeable. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and it is prayed that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed being with heavy cost.

3.                          Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                          Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A,  document Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party made a statement that reply already filed in this case be read in evidence.

5.                          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that through this complaint the complainant sought the relief to change the NDS connection into domestic connection and also requested not to recover the amount of Rs.26126/- with other relief mentioned in the prayer clause. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party made a statement that written statement be considered as evidence.  The perusal of written  statement filed on behalf of the respondent shows that the written statement was filed merely on denial basis. The specific reply has not been mentioned regarding the complaint. At the time of argument, it is submitted by the respondent that initially the domestic connection was issued in favour of the father of the complainant on dated 21.04.2000 having connected load 0.400. After that the same was changed into NDS Category during the period 6/2004. The respondent officials failed to place on record any document to prove that why the domestic connection of the complainant was changed into NDS connection. The perusal of the bills shows that now the bills were issued after considering the tariff as NDS category and the sanctioned connected load is 1.90KW. In the present complaint one witness Sandeep LDC from SDO Sub Divison No.4 appeared before the Forum and placed on record a document which is Ex.CX. The perusal of this record itself shows that the present connection was released in favour of father of the complainant namely Parkash s/o Jug Lal and the connected load at that time was 0.400KW. At the time of arguments, internal audit half margin report of Account No.K552-1932 bearing memo no.4329/96 was also placed on record. Through this half margin report the auditor found that an amount of Rs.13117/- is also chargeable from the complainant for the period of July 2011 to June 2014.  The alleged amount has been charged by the respondent officials belatedly and against the Sales Circular and Electricity Act. In our view, the respondent has violated the rules and regulations of the Indian Electricity Act because as per Section 56 of Electricity Act “No sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after a period of two years from the date when such sum become first due”. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission, Maharashtra dated 15.03.2013 in Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Balmukund Kamlaprasad Asati and order dated 07.10.2010 of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana Panchkula in Dakshin Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mahabir Parshad  whereby Hon’ble State Commission, has held that: “Once the recovery has been made by way of issuing the bills on average basis then the question of holding the complainant again guilty for not making the payment of the aforesaid period, is not sustainable in the eyes of law”.

7.                          After considering all the facts we came to the conclusion that the respondent has no right to charge or recover an amount of Rs.13117/- or its surcharge from the complainant. Moreover, they have not placed on record any document to prove that why the connection of the complainant was changed from domestic to Non-domestic supply(NDS).   As such, complaint is allowed and we direct the respondent to change the connection of the complainant from NDS to DS and not to charge the alleged amount of Rs.13117/- or its surcharge from the complainant and to adjust the 30% amount of disputed bill vide order dated 08.02.2017 of this Forum(if paid by the complainant) in future bills of the complainant. Respondent is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant which shall also be adjusted in the future consumption bills of the complainant. Order shall be complied maximum within one month from the date of decision.

8.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

9.                          File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

20.11.2018.                                       ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.

                                                                        …………………………..

                                                                        Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.