BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.66/14.

Date of instt.: 27.03.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 30.07.2015.

Ashok Dua S/o Sh. Ghanshyam Dass c/o Dua Poultry Farm, Dhand Road, Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. S.D.O. Sub Urban, Sub Division No.1, U.H.B.V.N., Kaithal.

2. Executive Engineer, U.H.B.V.N., Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal.

3. U.H.B.V.N., through its M.D./Chairman, Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula (Chandigarh).

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. S.K.Gupta, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. R.S.Dhull, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection No.SP01-0054 and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that the Ops raided the premises of complainant on 11.02.2014 and everything was found perfectly in order and nothing incriminating was found at the spot.  It is further alleged that inspite of the extension of load of complainant from 20 K.W. to 25 K.W. in the year 2008, the present bill is not showing the true connected load, whereas the complainant is sending the bill dt. 18.01.2008 wherein the Ops have rightly shown the connected load as 25 K.W.  It is further alleged that the Ops issued the illegal, null and void memo No.263 dt. 13.03.2014 for sum of Rs.73,625/- as fixed charges from 01.10.2010 to 31.01.2014 and to submit LTCT meter also.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant is having SP (Small Power) connection for commercial purpose, so, he is excluded from the definition of consumer; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that on 11.02.2014, the premises of complainant-Dua Poultry Farm, Dhand Road, Kaithal was checked by a vigilance party in the presence of complainant and on checking MDI was found exceeded against the sanctioned load as shown in the bill i.e. connected load was found 22 K.W. against the sanctioned load of 20 K.W. as shown in the bill.  Actually the complainant got extended his load from 18 K.W. to 25 K.W. on 30.08.2005, however due to bonafide mistake his extended load could not be shown in the ledger/bill and for the first time, his extended load of 25 K.W. was shown in the bill in the month of 1/2008 and after that his load was shown 20 K.W. in his bills from the month of 2/2008 to 3/2014.  As during the above-said period, the complainant was not charged as per sales circular No.U28/2010 dt. 22.09.2010 due to not showing the load 25 K.W. in the ledger, so, this mistake was rectified and account of complainant was overhauled as per above-said sales circular, so, the amount of Rs.73,625/- was found chargeable towards the complainant in accordance with the above-said sales circular.  So, accordingly a demand notice of Rs.73,625/- was served upon the complainant vide memo No.263 dt. 13.03.2014.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C17 and closed evidence on 21.05.2015.  On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to R8 and closed evidence on 21.05.2015.     

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

5.     Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that inspite of the extension of load of complainant from 20 K.W. to 25 K.W. in the year 2008, the present bill is not showing the true connected load, whereas the complainant received the bill dt. 18.01.2008 wherein the Ops have rightly shown the connected load as 25 K.W.  The Ops issued the illegal, null and void memo No.263 dt. 13.03.2014 for sum of Rs.73,625/- as fixed charges from 01.10.2010 to 31.01.2014.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops contends that the complainant got extended his load from 18 K.W. to 25 K.W. on 30.08.2005, however due to bonafide mistake his extended load could not be shown in the ledger/bill and for the first time, his extended load of 25 K.W. was shown in the bill in the month of 1/2008 and after that his load was shown 20 K.W. in his bills from the month of 2/2008 to 3/2014.  As during the above-said period, the complainant was not charged as per sales circular No.U28/2010 dt. 22.09.2010 due to not showing the load 25 K.W. in the ledger, so, this mistake was rectified and account of complainant was overhauled as per above-said sales circular, so, the amount of Rs.73,625/- was found chargeable towards the complainant in accordance with the above-said sales circular.  So, accordingly a demand notice of Rs.73,625/- was served upon the complainant vide memo No.263 dt. 13.03.2014.

6.       Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection No.SP01-0054 and has been paying the bills regularly.  The contention of complainant is correct that insptie of extension of load of complainant from 20 K.W. to 25 K.W. in the year 2008, the present bill is not showing the true connected load.  The complainant received a bill dt. 18.01.2008 wherein the copies have rightly shows the connected load as 25 K.W.  It is admitted by the Ops that the load of connection of complainant was extended from 18 K.W. to 25 K.W. on 30.08.2005.  But due to bonafide mistake, his extended load could not be shown in the ledger.  When the mistake was rectified, the Ops have found that the complainant is liable to be charged as per sales circular No.U-28/2010 dt. 22.09.2010 on the basis of extended load of 25 K.W.  Thereafter, the Ops have written a letter vide memo No.263 dt. 13.03.2014 for a sum of Rs.73,625/- as fixed charges from 01.10.2010 to 31.01.2014.  As per clause 2 of Section 56 of Electricity Laws of India “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 arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.” So, the Ops are entitled to recover due amount only for two years before the date when the Ops wrote the letter Ex.C1 to the complainant i.e. from 13.03.2014.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and held that the letter issued vide memo No.263 dt. 13.03.2014 is null and void.  So, the Ops are not entitled to recover the sum due for more than two years and they can recover the sum due only for 2 years before 13.03.2014 as per Section 56(2) of Electricity Act.  No order as to cost.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.30.07.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.