Haryana

Karnal

CC/437/2022

Varinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVNL Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Kamboj

12 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No.437 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.29.07.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:12.10.2023

 

Varinder Singh aged about 51 years son of Shri Sadhu Ram, resident of house no. 129, sector-6, Urban Estate, Karnal. Aadhar no.4759 8422 4370.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Sub Divisional Officer (OP), UHBVN Ltd. Sub Division, Meerut Road, Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

 

Argued by:  Shri Sanjiv Kamboj, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Satish Kumar, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Vineet Kaushik, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is having an domestic electricity connection bearing account no.030023517 and that is running in the house of the complainant situated at Ranwar Road, near Vastu, Vikas Nagar, Karnal. The aforesaid house of the complainant is lying closed since long because he is having one another house i.e. house no.129 Sector-6, Urban Estate Karnal and he alongwith his wife residing in that house. The complainant has lastly received bill dated 13.06.2021 for an amount of Rs.1027/- which was duly paid by him to the OP and after that he has not received any bill from the OP. Said fact clearly shows that prior to 13.06.2021, there was no outstanding amount against the complainant. Complainant visited the office of OP and requested for issuance of the bill but no bill was issued.  Thereafter, complainant received a bill dated 07.05.2022 for an amount of Rs.1,14,524/-for the period from 07.12.2017 to 23.04.2022 by showing the consumption of 25751 units. On receipt of the said bill, complainant visited the office of OP and requested for withdrawal of the said amount does not relate to him. The demand of Rs.114524/- is quite illegal, null and void, arbitrary, ineffective and not bindings on the rights of the complainant and is liable to be set aside. The demand of Rs.114524/- after a gap of five years is not legally tenable because as per section 56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, the Nigam is not entitled to recover the amount of more than the period of two years. The said amount was never shown and due in any bill earlier for the last more than two years.  Thereafter, complainant approached the OP and requested number of times not to disconnect the electricity connection under the demand of Rs.114524/- but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and threatened for disconnection of the electricity connection of complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction; estoppal and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the Old meter number for domestic supply category was of 3KW load and was having no.72780185. The said meter was replaced with smart meter/new meter no.GL-8693086 on 23.04.2022 with initial reading Kwh 0. The final reading of the old meter was 25751 Kwh. The complainant had paid Rs.1027/- on 13.06.2021 and no payment was made after 13.06.2021 of the previous bill upto bill dated 24.03.2022 issued to the consumer on RNT/Average basis. From 07.12.2017 upto 23.04.2022, the bills were sent on average basis to the consumer. The meter change order no.1737/35 dated 23.04.2022 was issued and meter was replaced by L&T company, which was updated in bill dated 07.05.2022 for 25750 units consumed during above period. So, the averments regarding house lying closed since long is wrong and against facts, as 25750 units were consumed by the complainant during above period and complainant is liable to pay the bill amount. It is further pleaded that no payment was made by the consumer from 07.12.2017 to 23.12.2022, except on average basis, for which the bills were sent to the consumer. So it is wrong to say that there was no outstanding amount against the complainant prior to 13.06.2021. The facts remains that the final reading of the old meter no.72780185 was 25751 Kwh on 23.04.2022, which was replaced with smart meter/new meter no.GL-8693086 on that date i.e. on 23.04.2022. The complainant is liable to pay the amount shown in the bill in question, which has been issued after adjusting Rs.29415/- automatically by computer system for bills issued to the consumer during above period on average Reading Not Taken Basis. 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 Ex.C1 and closed the evidence on 11.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Shivam Bagri, SDO Ex.OP1, copies of electricity bills (27) Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 18.05.2023 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/is paying the electricity bill regularly. Complainant received electricity bill for the period from 07.12.2017 to 23.04.2022 to the tune of Rs.114524/-, which was very huge amount. After receiving the bill complainant requested the OP to correct the electricity bill but the same has not been corrected by the OP. He further argued that the demand of Rs.114524/- after a gap of five years is not tenable because as per section 56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, the Nigam is not entitled to recover the amount of more than the period of two years. The said amount was never shown and due in any bill earlier for the last more than two years. Learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the case law titled as Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Banta Singh (deceased) through LRs in CM-4780 and 4782-C of 2021, in/and RSA no.1074 of 2021 ()&M), date of decision 22.02.2023 of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel of OP while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that Old meter of complainant was of 3KW load. The said meter was replaced with smart meter on 23.04.2022 with initial reading Kwh 0. The final reading of the old meter was 25751 Kwh. The complainant had paid only Rs.1027/- on 13.06.2021 and no payment was made after 13.06.2021 of the previous bill upto bill dated 24.03.2022 issued to the consumer on RNT/Average basis. From 07.12.2017 upto 23.04.2022, the bills were sent on average basis to the consumer. 25750 units were consumed by the complainant during above period and complainant is liable to pay the bill amount. The complainant is liable to pay the amount shown in the bill in question, which has been issued after adjusting Rs.29415/- automatically by computer system and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the complainant is consumer of OP and using the electricity connection.

11.           As per version of the OP, old meter of complainant was replaced with smart meter/new meter on 23.04.2022 with initial reading Kwh 0. The final reading of the old meter was 25751 Kwh. The complainant had paid Rs.1027/- only on 13.06.2021 and thereafter no electricity bill was paid by the complainant. From 07.12.2017 upto 23.04.2022, the bills were sent on average basis to the consumer. Complainant consumed the 25750 units during above period and complainant is liable to pay the bill amount.

12.           The complainant has placed on file electricity bill Ex.C1 dated 07.05.2022.  On perusal of the electricity bill, it reveals that OP has demanded sum of Rs.1,14,524/- first time as arrears vide bill 07.05.2022. The said amounts relates to the year 07.12.2017 upto 23.04.2022.  As per section 56(2) of Electricity Act, 2003 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. Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, wherein it has been mentioned as under:

“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 license shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.”

 

13.           The similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble  Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others Vs. Permanent Lok Adalat and another in CWP-6219-2019 (O&M), date of decision 08.03.2019 and latest law titled as Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Banta Singh (deceased) through LRs in CM-4780 and 4782-C of 2021, in/and RSA no.1074 of 2021 ()&M), date of decision 22.02.2023.

14.           Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, as per Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the demand of Rs.1,14,,524/- raised by the OP, vide bill Ex.C1 dated 07.05.2022 is not justified. Thus, the act of the OP for demanding of the arrear to the sum of Rs.1,14,524/- for the period from 07.12.2017 to 23.04.2022 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

15.           In view of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP not to charge the bill amount of Rs.1,14,524/- claimed in bill Ex.C1 and any surcharge accrued thereupon from the complainant. In case of any amount out of demanded amount is deposited by the complainant, same may also be refunded or adjusted in the account of the complainant. OP is also directed to issue the subsequent electricity bills as per the actual electricity consumption for the period which was not paid by the complainant due to the disputed bill amount remains, if any. On issuing fresh bills complainant is also bound to clear the same. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.5000/- 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:12.10.2023                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

  (Vineet Kaushik)     

  Member