Sadhu Ram filed a consumer case on 29 Aug 2024 against Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVN Limited in the Karnal Consumer Court. The case no is CC/418/2021 and the judgment uploaded on 03 Sep 2024.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.
Complaint No.418 of 2021
Date of instt.19.08.2021
Date of Decision: 29.08.2024
Sadhu Ram son of Shri Dalpat resident of village Kailash, Tehsil and District Karnal, aged about 85 years. Aadhar no.226017393841.
…….Complainant.
Versus
Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVN Ltd. Sub Division, Newal Tehsil and District Karnal.
…..Opposite Party.
Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before Shri Jaswant Singh……President.
Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member
Argued by: Shri Sanjiv Kamboj, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Deepak Sachdeva, counsel for the OP.
(Jaswant Singh, President)
ORDER:
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant was having an electricity connection bearing account no.ND-11-1509 and that was PDCO due to non-payment of an amount of Rs.59814/-, vide PDCO order dated 23.01.2018. Thereafter, a scheme was launched by the OP for interest waiving etc. and complainant was asked to settle the matter in the said scheme and the complainant agreed for same then the official of the OP stated that the complainant in lump sum would have to pay Rs.23,500/- and then his connection will be restored. Accordingly, on 31.12.2018 the complainant deposited the said settled amount in the office of the OP. Thereafter, OP restored the electricity supply of the premises of the complainant but has not issued the bill for a long period. The complainant visited the office of OP number of times for getting his bill of current energy charges but all the times the OP postponed the matter that still MCO has not been entered in their system and when same will be entered then bill will be issued to him. In the year 2020, OP disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant without assigning any reason. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP to know about the reason of disconnection of his electricity connection on this OP stated that there is pending dues and current energy charges. The complainant stated that he has cleared his previous dues as per the settlement scheme and as such there is no previous due and he is ready to pay current energy charges but OP started postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. It is further averred that complainant received a bill dated 17.03.2021 for an amount of Rs.70943/- in which previous amount has been added despite of the fact that as per settlement scheme the complainant deposited balance amount in lump sum hence there is no previous outstanding amount but the OP is bent upon to recover that amount also and due to this reason is not restoring the supply of premises of the complainant due to which he is suffering from great mental pain, agony and harassment. Non-restoration of the electricity connection of the complainant and charging of previous amount of prior to the year 2018 is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.
2. On notice, OP appeared and filed their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction and suppression of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant is defaulter of the OP as he is not paying regular bill amount since 26.11.2011. Thereafter, Nigam has launched a scheme vide sale circular no.U-15/2018 and then complainant moved application on 31.12.2018 for take benefit under the said circular and as per circular the complainant was bound to pay Rs.59814/- and then complainant paid part payment of Rs.23500/- and assured that he will pay the remaining amount within time as per circular. But complainant did not come forward to deposit the remaining amount till today, electricity connection of the complainant was removed on 10.03.2021 as per the office order due to non-payment. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Parties then led their respective evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1/A, copy of electricity bill dated 17.03.2021 Ex.C1, copy of bill deposit receipt dated 31.12.2018 Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 20.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sandeep Kumar SDO Ex.OP1/A, copy of sale circular no.U-15/2018 Ex.OP1, copy of ledger detail Ex.OP2, copy of calculation sheet Ex.OP3, copy of sundry copy Ex.OP4, copy of electricity bills Ex.OP5 to Ex.OP8, copy of payment history Ex.OP9, copy of PDCO Ex.OP10 and closed the evidence on 19.03.2024 by suffering separate statement.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
7. Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant was having an electricity connection and on 23.01.2018, it was disconnected by the OP due to non-payment of an amount of Rs.59814/-. After taking the benefit of sale circular no.U-15/2018 complainant deposited an amount of Rs.23500/- on 31.12.2018. OP restored the electricity supply of the premises of the complainant but has not issued the bill for a long period. Complainant requested the OPs several times to issue the current energy charges but OP did not issue the same. In the year 2020, OP disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant without assigning any reason. Complainant is always ready to pay current energy charges. Complainant received bill dated 17.03.2021 for an amount of Rs.70943/- in which previous amount has been added despite of the fact that as per settlement scheme the complainant deposited balance amount in lump sum hence there is no previous outstanding amount but OP is adamant to recover the said illegal bill amount and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant is defaulter of the OP as he is not paying regular bill amount since 26.11.2011. OP has launched a scheme vide sale circular no.U-15/2018 and then complainant moved application on 31.12.2018 for taking the benefit under the said circular and as per circular the complainant was bound to pay Rs.59814/- and then complainant paid part payment of Rs.23500/- and assured that he will pay the remaining amount within time, as per circular but complainant failed to deposit the remaining amount till today and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.
10. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Panchkula vide sale circular no.U-15/2018 Ex.OP1 dated 20.09.2018, has launched a scheme for settlement of pending electricity bills of defaulting connected and disconnected domestic consumers (having whole current meters) and non-domestic consumers (with sanctioned load of 5KW or less) in rural and urban areas (Waiver Scheme 2018) and said scheme has been approved to launch by the Government of Haryana. As per the said scheme, the principal amount of all such consumers who opt for the scheme, shall be recalculated from the date of default till 30th June, 2018 as per the supply code i.e. for domestic consumers @ 40 units per KW per month in rural areas and 50 units per KW per month in Urban areas, for non-domestic consumer @ 75 units per KW per month in rural area and @ 150 units per KW per month in urban areas, without FLA, at the current applicable tariff (without subsidy). Default amount pertaining to the period after 30.06.2018, if any, shall be payable as per the existing instructions.
11. The complainant availed the said scheme and deposited Rs.23500/- on 31.12.2018 with the OP. As per the calculation sheet Ex.OP3, the total charged amount upto 30.06.2018 was of Rs.49,920/- and total charged amount after 30.06.2018 was to be Rs.59,814/-. In calculation sheet Ex.OP3 and sundry copy Ex.OP4, OP has shown the charged amount of Rs.59,814/-. In the abovesaid documents, it is nowhere mentioned that said amount is due after giving the benefit of the scheme. As per electricity bill Ex.OP7 dated 26.09.2018 an amount of Rs.59,400/- only was pending till September, 2018. Hence, it is not possible that on 31.12.2018, after giving the benefit of the scheme, an amount of Rs.59,814/- was remained pending. Hence, it has been proved on record that complainant has cleared all the outstanding dues by availing the benefit of the scheme, depositing Rs.23,500/-. It appears that OP has prepared the calculation sheet Ex.OP3 on the basis of presumption and assumption, which is not justified in the eyes of law. It also appears that OP has not given the benefit of the scheme. Thus, act of the OP demanding the amount of Rs.59,814/- amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
12. On the direction of this Commission the complainant has deposited 30% of the disputed amount i.e. Rs.59,814/-. Hence, complainant is also entitled for refund or adjust the said amount in future electricity bills.
13. In view of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP not to charge the amount of Rs.59,814/- and any surcharge accrued thereupon from the complainant. Complainant is also bound to deposit the electricity bills as per the actual consumption after 31.12.2018. The amount deposited by the complainant as per direction of the Commission, be adjusted in further electricity bills of the complainant. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
Dated:29.08.2024
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Karnal.
(Sarvjeet Kaur)
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.