Haryana

StateCommission

A/731/2014

S.D.O. Operations, City-I, Sub- Division - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sh.Megh Singh - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.731 of  2014

Date of the Institution: 19.08.2014

Date of Decision: 25.07.2016

 

S.D.O. Operations, City-I, Sub- Division, DHBVN Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad Haryana.

                                                                   .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Sh.Megh Singh s/o Sh.Attar Singh r/o village Pehladpur Tehsil Ballabhgarh & District Faridabad, Haryana.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Rohit Dheer, Advocate for the appellants.

                    None for the respondent.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                   It was alleged by the complainant he was having tubewell connection bearing No.APP-155. Some amount was due towards him in the month of January, 2005. Lateron, he was given benefit of rebate under welfare scheme in the month of April, 2005 on the condition of making payment in next 20 months regularly as per actual consumption. He availed that facility and started making payment regularly. In the month of December, 2006 he received a bill to deposit Rs.37,254/- as of consumption and Rs.26,641/- as arrears of previous bill.  He approached the department about this fault but they flatly refused to give benefit to him under welfare scheme and were insisting to deposit that amount

2.                Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps.)  filed reply admitting welfare scheme but alleged that at the time of checking on 05.11.2006 he was found consuming electricity more than the sanctioned loan of 5 BHP. He was using the motor of 10 BHP. So, penalty of Rs.2000/- per BHP was imposed to the extent of Rs.10,000/-. Rs.26,641/- were also outstanding against him. As he violated the conditions of waiver policy, this demand was also raised  per sales circular (in short ‘SC’)No.8/05.

3.                After hearing both the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide order dated 28.01.2014 and ordered as under:-

“Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to accept the actual consumption charges from the complainant towards his tubewell connection bearing account No.F33 DE54-3047 from Dec 2006 till date without asking for any sort of penalty or surcharge etc.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 

5.      Arguments of counsel for appellant were heard because none has appeared on behalf of the respondent.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that  complainant was given benefit of waiver scheme under certain conditions as mentioned in SC No.D-8/2005. At the time of checking on 05.11.2006 it was found that he was using motor of 10 BHP whereas sanctioned load was 5 BHP. In this way, he was steeling electricity. As per instructions penalty etc. were imposed and the aforesaid demand was raised.

7.                This argument is plausible because waiver scheme benefit was conditional and not absolute, which is clear from the perusal of Annexure A-3. It is clearly mentioned therein that if the consumer is involved in theft of energy during 20 months then whatever the benefit he has earned upto that time would be denied to him.  For ready reference, relevant para of sale circular No.D-8/2005 dated 27.07.2005 is reproduced as under:-

“The opting consumer of this scheme, if found involved in theft of energy during next 20 months, then whatever the benefit of waiver he has earned upto that time would  be denied to him.”

It means that if any person was found steeling electricity thereafter he was not entitled for the benefit of welfare scheme. As already mentioned above, at the time of checking complainant was found steeling electricity and that is why additional demand was raised. As he violated the terms and conditions of SC No.D8-2008, he was not entitled for this benefit. So, impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside and the appeal is hereby allowed and complaint is dismissed.

July, 25th, 2016

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench