Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/664/2013

Som Nath S/o Bishambar Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

12 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No.  664 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 13.09.2013.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 12.04.2016.

Som Nath Tyagi aged about 65 years son of Sh. Bishambar Dass, Garden N Ashoka Dent, Gobindpuri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. S.D.O, UHBVNL, Sub Division, ITI, Yamuna Nagar.
2. SE UHBVNL, Yamuna Nagar.
3. MD, UHBVNL, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.
4. XEN, UHBVNL,  Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                            …Respondents. 

 

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Complainant in person.  

              Sh. Dharambir Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents.    

 

ORDER

           

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No. YI-14-3300 and has been paying the bills regularly. The complainant astonished to receive the bill dated 27.8.2013, in which an amount of Rs. 11805/- has been demanded i.e. Rs. 6669/- for current bill and Rs. 4848/- has been shown as sundry charges whereas both the amounts are illegal, null and void. The respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) have shown the consumed unit as 1022 for the period of 4.6.2013 to 4.8.2013, which is not justified. Even previously in the month of October 2012 the complainant received a bill for 675 units for which the complainant requested the OPs that the bill is excessive and wrong but the OPs refused to do anything. On enquiry, OPs told that 5 years ago your meter was changed and for that period your account was overhauled and half margin has been charged. If it is taken to be true, the meter was faulty and the half margin has been charged then also the amount is time barred as after a lapse of 2 years the OPs have no right to charge any amount from the complainant. As the wrong bills have been sent by the OPs, hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. To prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his short affidavit as Annexure CW/A and copy of bill dated 27.8.2013 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of bill No. 675 dated 26.10.2009 as annexure C-2 and closed his evidence.

3.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed its written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi, the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct and on merit it has been stated that the electricity meter of the complainant was defective and the same was  changed and during the defective period i.e. October 2009 to November 2010, the billing of the complainant was done on the basis of minimum basis i.e. 200+200+329 total 729 units and after installation of the new meter, the consumption of three bimonthly bills was 1879 ( 534+697+648) and thus the units consumed for one bill bimonthly is 626 units, as such on the basis of said calculation, the account of the complainant was overhauled for the defective period. After deducting the already billed units i.e. 729 unit out of consumed unit i.e. 1879 units, ( 1879-729= 1150). The present bill of remaining 1150 units of defective period amounting to Rs. 4848/- has been added in the present consumption bill of the complainant. So, the present bill is absolutely legal and the complainant is liable to pay the same. Copy of calculation made by the Audit Party is Annexure R-1. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. To prove his case, counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Sukhwinder Singh SDO as Annexure RW/A and copy of Internal Audit Report (Half Margin) as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

4.                     We have heard both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

5.                     From the perusal of Annexure R-1 copy of Internal Audit Report it is evident that the meter of the complainant was remained defective for October 2009, December 2009 and February 2010 and the bills were sent on minimum basis charging the unit of 200+200+329 units respectively and meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO in the month of April 2010 and after that bills were sent as per actual consumption to the complainant. Further from this Internal Audit Report, it is clear that the account of the complainant has been overhauled by the Ops after a lapse of near about 3 ½ years and the difference amount of Rs. 4848/- has been charged as sundry charges in the bill bearing No. 622 dated 27.8.2013 first time by the OPs, 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. The meter of the complainant was changed in the month of April 2010 but the local account department of the opposite parties not overhauled the account of the complainant for next 3 ½ years till the Audit by Internal Audit Department and amount of Rs. 4848/- has been demanded only Ist time on 27.08.2013 by the OPs. 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 parties.  As such, the complainant is entitled for relief qua waiving of the amount of Rs. 4848/- levied by the opposite parties vide bill No. 622 dated 27.08.2013.            

6.                     Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the opposite parties not to charge the amount of Rs. 4848/- from the complainant which has been shown as average adjustment in the bill dated 27.8.2013 and the same is hereby quashed alongwith surcharge and if any amount has been deposited against this bill the same be adjusted in the future bills issued from the date of receipt of this order and further to issue correct bill as per actual consumption. OPs are also directed to pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation & litigation expenses. 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: 12.04.2016.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                                MEMBER