Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/777/2013

Rajesh Rathur S/o Joginder Singh Rathur - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Avdesh Gupta

04 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No.  777 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 23.10.2013.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 04.05.2016

Rajesh Rathaur aged about 53 years son of Sh. Joginder Singh Rathaur, Gud Mandi Road,Industrial Area, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                             …Complainant.

 

Sub Divisional Officer, UHBVNL Model Town, Industrial Area, Yamuna Nagar.  

 

                                                                                                            …Respondents. 

 

BEFORE          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh. Avdesh Gupta, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

                        Sh. Zile Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondent.    

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Rajesh Rathaur has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondent (hereinafter referred as OPs be directed to refund an amount of Rs. 6357/- which was charged as sundry charges from the complainant and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.     

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that he is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No. Y42YA201538M and paying the bills regularly and nothing is due against him. The OP has wrongly issued a bill bearing No. 2413 dated 25.09.2013 in which an amount of Rs. 1728/- has been shown as arrear and Rs. 6357/- were included as sundry charges without giving any opportunity of hearing. The complainant visited the office of OP so many times and ultimately an amount of Rs. 1728/- was deleted from the bill by the OP. However, an amount of Rs. 6357/- which was charged on account of sundry charges were not deleted. Even, the OPs failed to convince the complainant that on what account amount of Rs. 6357/- was charged from the complainant. However, this amount i.e. Rs. 6357/- alongwith current bill had been deposited by the complainant under protest. So, the complainant is entitled to get the refund of Rs. 6357/- which has been levelled against the complainant after a period of 4 years. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no deficiency in service on the part of OP. The meter of the complainant was replaced during the period from 28.4.2010 to 28.06.2010 and again the meter of the complainant was replaced during the period from 28.10.2010 to 28.12.2010. As per instructions of the Nigam the account of the complainant was overhauled by the Audit Department and a total sum of Rs. 6357/- was charged by the OP from the complainant and thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and correct bill has been issued to the complainant. On merit, reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as Electricity bill bearing No. 2413 dated 25.09.2013 as Annexure C-1 and Photo copy of application dated 17.10.2013 for depositing the amount of Rs. 6357/- under protest as Annexure C-2 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Manoj Grewal, SDO (OP) Industrial Area, UHBVNL, Jagadhri as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copy of sale circular No. U-6/2007 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of Sale Circular No. U-29/2011 as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of notice regarding replacement of defective meter as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of MCO dated 21.06.2013 as Annexure R-4, Report of MCO dated 18.05.2010 as Annexure R-5,Photo copy of half margin report as Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.  6.                 We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents attached with the file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant is having an electricity connection bearing account No. Y42YA201538M. The only plea of the Op department is that the meter of the complainant was replaced during the period from 28.04.2010 to 28.06.2010 and again replaced during the period from 28.10.2010 to 28.12.2010 and due to that the account of the complainant was overhauled by the Audit Department for the period from July/2009 to June/2012 and a total sum of Rs. 16157/- was assessed and found payable by the complainant and after giving him adjustment, a sum of Rs. 6357/- was charged by the Op Department from the complainant and thus a correct bill showing sundry charges of Rs. 6357/- was rightly issued to the complainant.

8                      On the other hand, counsel for the complainant hotly argued that account of the complainant has been overhauled by the OP after a period of near about 3 years without giving any notice and the complainant was compelled to deposit the huge amount in one time which constitute a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

9.                     After hearing both the parties and going through the documents it is not disputed that the meter of the complainant was replaced twicely, firstly during the period from 28.04.2010 to 28.06.2010 and secondly from the period of 28.10.2010 to 28.12.2010 but the account of the complainant was overhauled by the Audit Party after a period of more than 2 years i.e. account of the complainant has been overhauled by the Audit Party in the month of September 2013 for the period of July/2009 to June/2012 which is evident from Annexure R-6 and amount of Rs. 6357/- has been leveled as sundry charges first time in the bill bearing No. 2413 dated 25.09.2013, which is patently illegal in the light of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that 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.                   Although the complainant had deposited the entire amount with the OP Nigam but that amount was deposited by the complainant under protest which is duly evident from the application dated 17.10.2013 (Annexure C-2). Further no prior notice has been given to the complainant before overhauling the electricity account of the complainant by the Audit Party. Even no chance of personal hearing was provided to the complainant before imposing the sundry charges of Rs. 6357/- after a period of more than 2 years. It shows that the local official of the opposite parties was totally negligent and hence, there is great deficiency on the part of the opposite party.  As such, the complainant is entitled for relief qua waiving of the amount of Rs. 6357/- levied by the opposite party vide bill No. 2413 dated 25.9.2013.

11.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the opposite party not to charge the amount of Rs. 6357/- from the complainant which has been shown as average adjustment in the bill dated 25.09.2013 and the same is hereby quashed and OP Department is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 6357/- to the complainant deposited by the complainant under protest which is evident from Annexure C-2 within a period of 30 days failing which complainant shall be entitled to get interest @ 7% per annum from the date of deposit till actual realization and further to pay Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order be complied within 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 sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 04.05.2016.

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                                MEMBER