Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/612/2013

Babu Ram s/o Sh.Prabhu Ram, - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO UHBVNL, - Opp.Party(s)

Balwinder saini

07 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No.612 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 21.08.2013

                                                                                    Date of decision: 07.08.2017

 

Babu Ram son of Shri. prabhu Ram, resident of Village Sabepur, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.  

 

        …Complainant.

 

                                     Versus

1. The S.D.O. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Division, Sub Urban Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.
2. XEN, UHBVNL Ltd. Yamuna Nagar.  

 

                                                                                                                   ..Respondents.

 

BEFORE:        SH. DHARAMPAL, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.  

 

Present:            Sh. Balwinder Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Zile Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents.   

 

ORDER            (DHARAMPAL PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     Complainant Babu Ram has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.        

2.                   Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is a consumer of UHBVNL having domestic connection bearing No. JU20/3760F-W, installed in his residential house. The complainant has been depositing the consumption bills regularly without any default and has been depositing the bills regularly. However the consumption bills are being issued around Rs. 800/- to Rs. 1200/- per bill cycle by the OPs to the complainant as per consumption of the electricity. The OPs have sent disputed bill for July 2010 by adding an illegal amount, which was corrected and thereafter, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and in further bills the complainant has also deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and upto February 2012, the OPs have sent bills as per unit consumption, but the OPs have sent a bill for March 2012 for Rs. 31,012/- by adding therein an illegal arrear. On receipt of the said disputed bill, the complainant approached the OPs and asked about the fact but they did not give any reply and also sent another bill for May, 2012 by adding that illegal arrear. The complainant has received a bill No. 4095 dated 26-01-2013 for an amount of Rs. 43,198/- and an amount of Rs. 39,313/- has been added wrongly therein, and on receipt of said bill, the complainant again approached to the OP No. 1 in this regard, but the Ops have not doing the needful. The complainant requested the OPs to receive the bill as per actual consumption and to deduct the said arrear from the bill in question, but the employees of the OP No. 1 have openly threatened that if the plaintiff did not deposit the said bill, they will forcibly disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant. In this way, the act and conduct of the OPs is wrong and illegal and deficiency as well as negligence in service. As such it is prayed that the complainant may kindly be accepted and OPs be directed to withdraw the disputed bills and to issue fresh bill as per actual consumption and to receive the same and not to recover the illegal amount from the complainant, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment, physical, mental and economical, Rs. 7,700/- on account of litigation expenses, to the complainant.    

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, has no locus standi, no cause of action and on merit it has been stated that the meter of the complainant had burnt, so he was charged on average basis from Dec. 2006 to Jan. 2009. The meter of the complainant was replaced and as per instruction of the Nigam, the account of the complainant was overhauled for the period from Dec. 2006 to Jan. 2009 on the basis of consumption recorded by the new meter for the period from May-2009 to Sept. 2009 by the audit department on 31-01-2012, so, a sum of Rs. 20,355/- was rightly charged by the Ops from the complainant as per calculation/audit report. The complainant did not deposit the said amount as well as bills, a result of which amount accumulated and a sum of Rs. 58,021/- is outstanding against the connection of the complainant till 09/2013. It is further submitted that the bill for July, 2010 upto Feb. 2012 and March, 2012 were rightly issued by the OPs. It is further submitted that the OPs have right to recover and realize the due amount of the Nigam from the complainant and further have a right to disconnect the electricity supply in case of non-payment of due amount of the Nigam. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and document such as electricity bills as annexure C-1 to C-14 and photocopy of bill payment receipt as Annexure C-15, photocopies of electricity bills as Annexure C-16 and C-17 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Sh. Munish Sharma, SDO, UHBVNL as Annexure RW/A and documents photocopy of ledger A/c as Annexure R-1, photocopy of Internal Audit Report as Annexure R-2, copies of overhaul report of the account of the complainant as Annexure R-3 and R-4, photocopy of ledger account as Annexure to R-5 in the evidence of the OPs and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

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

7.                     Undisputedly, the complainant is having an electricity connection bearing No. JU20/3760F-W. The case of the complainant is that the OPs have sent a bill No. 4095 dated 26-01-2013 for an amount of Rs. 43,198/- and an amount of Rs. 39,313/- has been added wrongly therein, after overhauling the account of the complainant for the period from Dec. 2006 to Jan. 2009.

8.                     Now, the question before us is as to whether the OPs can charge any amount from the complainant on the basis of assessment done by their audit party for the defective period of meter. The bill was charged on average basis from Dec. 2006 to Jan. 2009 and lateron as per instruction of the Nigam, the account of the complainant was overhauled for the period from Dec. 2006 to Jan. 2009 on the basis of consumption recorded by the new meter for the period from May-2009 to Sept. 2009 by the audit department on 31-01-2012 so a sum of Rs. 20,355/- was charged by the Ops from the complainant as per calculation/audit report.

9.                     From the perusal of the records, it reveals that the demand of Rs. 39,313/- raised by the Ops vide bill No. 4095 dated 26-01-2013 pertains to the period Dec. 2006 to Jan. 2009. However, the OPs demanded impugned amount from the complainant only in Jan. 2013 i.e. after more than 2 years.

10.                   As per Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, no amount due from the consumer can be recovered after a period of two years from the date of amount became due, unless and until the due amount has been shown payable continuously in the ledger. It is not the case of the OPs before us. The Hon’ble National Commission in case Bombay Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking vs. Pophate Nursing Home & another, 1986-95 Consumer 497 (NS) has held that recovery of arrears for more than two years would be barred by limitation.

11.                   The Hon’ble SCDRC, Haryana in case titled as DHBVN v. Khushi Ram, FA No. 2370 decided on 05-06-2012, where Electricity Board demanded Rs. 6,958 in the year 2001 from the complainant/consumer towards sundry charges on account of outstanding of his another connection disconnected in the year 1994 i.e. after a period of more than 7 years, has held that recovery of arrears for more than two years would be barred by limitation.

12.                   In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and ratio of law decided by higher courts, we are of the considered view that OP wrongly demanded the defaulting amount after gap of two years from the complainant vide Bill No. 4095 dated 26-01-2013. After going through the above said discussion, we are of the opinion that this act and conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency in service on its part.

13.                   For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint is hereby, allowed and the OPs are directed :-

            i.          To treat the bill No. 4095 dated 26-01-2013 as set aside and cancelled being time barred.

            ii.          Not to demand Rs. 39,313/- from the complainant on account of assessment for the defective period of meter Dec. 2006 to Jan. 2009 and the amount deposited by the complainant against the aforesaid bill be adjusted in the future bill of the complainant, if any.

            iii.         In peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

                        Let the order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced: 07.08.2017

                                                    ( DHARAMPAL)

                                                     PRESIDENT

                                                     D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                     AT JAGADHRI

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)    (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                    MEMBER

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

( DHARAMPAL)

                                                            PRESIDENT

                                                            D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                  AT JAGADHRI