Haryana

Karnal

CC/398/2022

Damini Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sanjiv Kamboj

23 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.398 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt 13.07.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:23.05.2024

 

Damini Saini wife of Hitesh Saini, resident of house no.346/3, Asa Ram Market Bachpan Play School, Model Town, Karnal. Aadhar no.8797 7810 9798.

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

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

 

                                                                …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

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

                    Shri Kavinder Singh, 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 is the consumer of the OP, having electricity connection bearing no.996522000, which is a domestic connection and the complainant since the day of installation of the said connection has been regularly paying the electricity charges to the OP.  The electricity meter of complainant became defective, which was replaced by the OP on 26.04.2022. OP issued a bill dated 30.06.2022 for an amount of Rs.4,19,018/- for 23785.03 units consumed between the period from 10.08.2019 to 26.04.2022 i.e. for 990 days i.e. 24.5 units per day. Said bill also includes the period from 26.04.2022 to 16.06.2022 i.e. for 51 days showing consumption of 49527 units i.e. 972 units per day. The demand of said bill is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the complainant and the same is liable to be set aside on the following grounds:-

1. First of all the bill for 23785 units is for 990 days i.e. from 10.08.2019 to 26.04.2022 and as per section 56(2) of the Electricity Act the Nigam is not entitled to recover the amount of more than the period of 2 years.
2. The bill is issued for period of 51 days i.e. from 26.04.2022 to 16.06.2022 showing consumption of 49527 units i.e. 972 units per day, which is not at all possible.
3. The slab of calculation of amount is not in accordance with the instruction of the Nigam as in every bill the calculation is made as per the schedule given by the Nigam but in this case flat rate has been charged for the entire units allegedly shown to be consumed.

2.             On receipt of the said bill, complainant contacted the OP and requested to overhaul her entire account as per her actual consumption but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and flatly refused to do so and threatened that if the complainant will not deposit the entire amount of the bill then her connection will be disconnected. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

3.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the bill in question sent to the complainant is on the basis of actual units consumed by the complainant and no extra amount has been charged from her and the present complaint is based upon the false and baseless facts. It is further pleaded that the DS connection account no.9965220000 was running in the name of Smt. Puspa Saini now after dated 04.10.2021 change of name existing in the name of complainant with sanctioned load of 10KW. It is further pleaded that old meter no.2143424 of the consumer was replaced on Final reading-NV with new smart meter no.GP5906823 on dated 31.10.2019 on initial reading 0KWH, the reading of new smart meter was updated in the bill dated 30.06.2022 for period 31.10.2019 to 16.06.2022 for 1021 days and the system of the computer systemically/automatically adjusted the average bills issue to the consumer and adjusted (-) Rs.154365.80 only in the bill dated 30.06.2022. Even the account of consumer was also manually overhauled 8.2019 to 7.2022 on the basis of PYM 10.12.2017 to 17.06.2019 and found an amount (-) Rs.132420/- only adjustable, which is also updated in bill dated 08.08.2022 through sundry. After feeding the o.k reading of new replaced meter issued correct revised bill. There is no question of defaulting amount or arrear of previous bills, only the reading consumed by the consumer during abovesaid period updated in the bill dated 30.06.2022 after replacement of meter on 31.10.2019. During this period average/MMC bills issued to consumer and same has been deposited by her and the bills deposited also adjusted in this bill system of the computer systemically/ automatically adjusted the average bills issued/payments deposited by the consumer. 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.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of electricity bill Ex.C1, copy of meter reading Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 09.01.2024 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vinay Kumar, AEE Ex.OW1/A, detail of sundry charges Ex.OP1, copy of bill detail of account no.9965220000 Ex.OP2, Copy of EESL meter receipt Ex.OP3, photograph of smart meter Ex.OP4, electricity bills due dates 27.06.2019, 20.08.2019, 17.10.2019, 05.05.2022, 27.06.2022, 25.08.2022 and 07.07.2022 Ex.OP5 to OP11, copy of bill payment history Ex.OP12, copy of daily consumption statements Ex.OP13 to Ex.OP16 and closed the evidence on 27.02.2024 by suffering separate statement.

7.             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.

8.             Learned counsel for complainants, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is regularly paying the electricity charges to the OP. The electricity meter of complainant became defective, which was replaced by the OP on 26.04.2022. On 20.06.2022, OP issued a bill for an amount of Rs.4,19,018/-. The demand of said bill is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the complainant. He further argued that the bill for 23785 units is for 990 days i.e. from 10.08.2019 to 26.04.2022 and as per section 56(2) of the Electricity Act the Nigam is not entitled to recover the bill amount of more than the period of 2 years. He further argued that the complainant requested the OP to overhaul her entire account as per her actual consumption but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and flatly refused to do so. He further argued that the complainant is a widow and she has two children out of them one is residing abroad and she is residing alongwith her minor daughter and it is not possible that two people can consume such a huge energy as shown by the OP in the disputed bill. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per-contra, learned counsel for OP while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the bill in question sent to the complainant is on the basis of actual units consumed by the complainant and no extra amount has been charged from her. The old meter no.2143424 of the consumer was replaced with new smart meter on dated 31.10.2019. The reading of new smart meter was updated in the bill dated 30.06.2022 for period 31.10.2019 to 16.06.2022 for 1021 days and the system of the computer automatically adjusted the average bills issued to the consumer and adjusted (-) Rs.154365.80 only in the bill dated 30.06.2022. The account of consumer was also manually overhauled from 8.2019 to 7.2022 on the basis of PYM 10.12.2017 to 17.06.2019 and found an amount (-) Rs.132420/- only adjustable, which is also updated in bill dated 08.08.2022. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and lastly and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties. It is also admitted that the complainant is regularly paying the electricity bill to the OP.

11.           Admittedly, the complainant is consumer of OP and using the electricity connection. It is also admitted that the meter of the complainant was replaced with the smart meter in the year 2019. It is also admitted that meter in question was also replaced on 26.04.2022. It is also admitted that before 26.04.2022, the complainant has been paying the energy charges regularly without any delay.

12.           The meter in question was replaced by the OP on 26.04.2022. If the OP was under the apprehension that meter was defective one and the was not giving the proper reading according to actual consumption, OP should have packed the meter in a box and sealed it at the spot and thereafter should have sent the same to the laboratory for testing but the OP had not adopted the proper procedure to find out the defect in the meter and actual reading of the same.

13.           The alleged bill has been issued by the OP on the basis of system of the computer and on the basis of manual overhauling. The OP has neither summoned the complainant at the time find out the reading by the computer nor at the time of overhauling the account of complainant manually. Both the process have been conducted in the back of the complainant which is not admissible in the eyes of law.

14.           The OP has placed on record copy of calculation/sundry Ex.OP1, which has been prepared by the CA of the OP but neither the said CA has been examined nor his affidavit has been tendered in evidence to prove the alleged calculation. Furthermore, the OP has also failed to place on file the verification report of the system by which the bill of the complainant was issued. Thus, the calculation sheet Ex.OP1 issued by the OP goes unproved.

15.           The OP has alleged that the bills for the period from 31.10.2019 to 16.06.2022, were issued on average basis. It is the duty of the OP to issue the bill as per the actual consumption and not on average basis for a long period. It was the fault of the OP for not issuing the bills on actual consumption basis for such a long period and for that the complainant cannot be blamed. The disputed bill is to the tune of Rs.4,19,018/-. The complainant is a widow and she has two children out of them one is residing abroad. The complainant is residing alongwith her minor daughter and it is not possible that such a huge units of energy have been consumed, where only two people are residing.  The OP has replaced the meter on 26.04.2022  and sent the disputed bill on 30.06.2022 without adopting the proper procedure and has been issued on the basis of presumption and assumption which is not admissible in the eyes of law.  

16.           The disputed bill is for the period of 31.10.2019 to 16.06.2022. 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. Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, is reproduced 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.”

 

17.           In this regard, we are placing reliance on the judgment titled as Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Banta Singh (deceased) through LRs in CM-4780 and 4782-C of 2021, date of decision 22.02.2023, wherein Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh has held that as per the Section 56(2) of Electricity Act, the limitation period of two years shall not start from the date when the connection of the defendant was made PDCO, rather this period shall start from the date when this amount was firstly demanded by the plaintiff and in this case the demand of this amount was made by the plaintiff vide legal notice dated 30.3.2010 Ex. P5. Although the limitation in this case is to be counted from 18.3.2010, when the connection of the defendant was disconnected. But if for the sake of arguments the limitation of two years is counted from the date of demand dated 30.3.2010 vide Ex.P5, although no ground is made out to calculate limitation from 30.3.2010, even then the suit is filed beyond two years from 30.3.2010 as the suit is filed on 7.5.2012. So, keeping in view the abovesaid provisions and the case law authority the present suit is time barred and same is not legally maintainable after the expiry of period of limitation of two years. We also placed reliance on the judgment titled as Assistant Engineer (D1) Ajmer Vidyut Versus Rahamatullah Khan Alias Rahamjulla, Civil Appeal No.1672 of 2020 (SC), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the word “due” has been used under Section 56(1) as well as under Section 56(2). The term “due” refers to the amount for which the demand is raised by way of a bill. The term “first due” would therefore imply when the demand is raised for the first time. The bill raised by the licensee company would be the starting point for the exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 56. The starting point of limitation would be from the date when the bill is raised by the licensee company. The bar of limitation is applicable only on the exercise of power of disconnection. As per sub-section (2) of Section 56, the bar of limitation would be two years from the date when the first bill is raised.

18.           Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments and facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the act of the OP while issuing the bill in question without adopting the proper procedure amounts to deficiency in service.

19.           In view of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP not to recover the disputed bill amount of Rs.4,19,018/- and any surcharge accrued thereupon from the complainant. In case of any amount out of disputed bill amount has been deposited by the complainant, same 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.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her 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:23.05.2024                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 (Vineet Kaushik)               (Dr.Suman Singh)

 Member                            Member