Haryana

Ambala

CC/217/2020

Raj Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

13 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AMBALA

 

` Complaint case no.	:	217 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	05.10.2020
Date of decision	:	13.12.2022

 

Raj Rani aged 47 years wife of Sh. Kuldeep Kamboj resident of 124, Vidya Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

…. Complainant.

                                                Versus

SDO "OP" Sub-Division No.1, UHBVN, Ambala Cantt.

….…. Opposite Party

Before:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                        Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

            Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.     

 

Present:         Shri Deepak Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                        Shri Sachin Goel, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

 

Order:           Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                     This complaint has been filed by complainant, under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of directions to it to withdraw the demand of amount Rs.1,36,400/-; to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment; and also cost of litigation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant or any other relief which this Commission deems fit. 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was having a commercial electricity meter connection in her name with the cycle /Group ABVA/ 05U with A/C No.8248233652 with sanctioned load (kw 14.85) on the above mentioned address. She was running a Unit /Factory in the said premises for earning her livelihood. The complainant shifted her factory/Unit to the HSIDC Saha in the year 2019. Therefore, in 2019, the complainant gave an application to the OP for closing above electricity connection. The complainant paid the entire bill and there was no balance payable by her to the OP. On 26.12.2019 the complainant gave application for closing the said electricity connection. However, after one year i.e. on 10.2.2020, she received a notice from the OP asking her to pay an amount of Rs.1,36,400/-, on the ground that the  reading of the meter had been wrongly noted down by the Meter Reader Authorities. Complainant was paying the bill amount regularly as demanded by the OPs from time to time and nothing was due against her. In the month of September, 2020 the OP removed the meter in question from the premises of the complainant and no parallel checking report was ever sent to her.  The demand of Rs.1,36,400/-, raised by the OP is illegal. Hence, the present complaint.
3.             Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction etc. On merits, while admitting the factual matrix of the case that electricity meter bearing account no.8248233652 had been installed in the premises of the complainant situated at 124 Vidya Nagar Ambala Cantt, it has been stated that in fact the complainant had given an affidavit to the effect that she will pay any differential amount, in respect of the meter in question. The meter in question was checked by Sh. Satish Kumar JE, who verified the details and recorded the reading thereof as 32734 units and the said report was also verified by Sh. Sohan Singh LM. Thereafter, the account was got checked by Audit Department and while checking the record, it was pointed out that the energy bill had been made on MMC instead of KVAH in HCL system and that the difference of SOP may be charged after due verification of record for the month 21-10-2016 to 14-12-2019. Thereafter, reading 32734 KWH units was converted into KVAH units which came to 36371 KVAH. After adjusting MMC charges Rs.1,05,450/- from Rs.2,41,867/-, an amount of Rs.1,36,400/- had  been instructed to be charged as per sale circular no.27/17 vide HALF MARGIN No. 39 dated 05-02-2020 against A/C No 8248233652 of  the complainant. Resultantly, notice was issued to the complainant vide memo no.496 dated 10-02-2020 but she did not pay the said amount, as a result of which, she is in arrears of Rs.1,63,309/-.  PDCO was issued to the complainant on 31.8.2020 on the defaulting of Rs.1,63,309/-, which was effected on the same day. Till date no payment has been made by the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4.             Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure CW1 and CW3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of Shri Satish Kumar, Junior Engineer Operation Sub Division No.1 UHBVN, Ambala Cantt. and Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, SDO operation Sub Division No.1 UNBVN Ambala Cantt. as Annexure RW-1/A and RW-2/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.
5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.
6.             At the outset, the learned counsel for the OP has raised the objection that complainant is not a consumer because she is the owner of a factory and had taken non-domestic electric connection.
7.             The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant had taken a non-domestic connection from the OP in her premises, for running a unit/factory for earning her livelihood, as such, she is a consumer.
8.             It may be stated here that in the case of Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited Versus Ramesh Kumar Rohilla, I (2015) CPJ 249 (NC), wherein complainant, owner of small office space measuring 36 sq. mt. had taken non-domestic unit connection, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that use of electricity connection is not to generate profits directly- Complainant is consumer. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, in the case referred to above, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the OP is not tenable, hence, rejected.
9.             On merits, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that despite the fact that not even a single penny was due to be paid by the complainant in respect of the meter in question, yet, by raising the illegal demand of Rs.1,36,400/- the OP is deficient in providing service.
10.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP submitted that since in the Audit Report dated 05.02.2020, Annexure R-3 it was found by the Audit Department that the electricity bill raised for the period from 21.10.2016 to 14.12.2019 had been wrongly made on MMC instead of KVAH, as such, the OP was right in raising the said demand of differential amount from the complainant, yet, by not paying the same, the complainant has attracted delayed payment interest.
11.             Admittedly, the demand of Rs.1,36,400/- had been raised by the OP on the ground that, in the Audit Report dated 05.02.2020, Annexure R-3 it was found by the Audit Department that the electricity bill raised for the period from 21.10.2016 to 14.12.2019 had been wrongly made on MMC instead of KVAH. In 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 arrears of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.

 Since, the OP raised the demand w.e.f 21.10.2016. Therefore, it can easily be said that the said demand raised by the OP is in violation of 56(2) of Electricity Act 2003. In the case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & another Vs. Ramji Bai 2009(1) CLT-526, Hon’ble State Commission Haryana has held that as per circular no.27/96-Electricity bills sundry charges raised by the audit party the Ops were duty bound to supply the necessary details of the audit report and to give a proper notice in terms of the sale circular, which it has not complied with the demand and also barred in view of section 56 of the Act 2003. Further,  in the case of Ravish Kumar Vs. SDO Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. 2018(3) CLT-497, the Hon’ble State Commission Haryana has held that the duty of the audit is to point out defects, if any, and violation of the rules and instructions at the same time of preparation of the electricity bills. The observation of the audit party in the internal half margin report, cannot be held to be binding.  On the basis of the objections raised in the audit report, the competent officers of the Nigam can change their decision and considering objections and may affirm their earlier decision by giving sound reasons.  It has further held that as per section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 certainly the opposite parties were not entitled to recover any amount regarding consumption of electricity or penalty etc., two years prior to the date of raising demand of the amount and informing the consumer regarding amount due towards him, the amount which has been claimed regarding the period two years prior to the date of raising demand, cannot be recovered from complainant being barred by limitation.

12.             In light of the above, in the present case also, the OP was wrong in raising the demand of Rs.1,36,400/-, and is liable to withdraw the demand notice dated 10.02.2020. OP is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by her. It is also liable to pay the litigation expenses, to the complainant.
13.             In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OP, in the following manner:-

(i) To withdraw the demand notice dated 10.02.2020.

(ii) To pay Rs.3,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

(iii) To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

                   The OP is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

Announced on:- 13.12.2022.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President