Haryana

StateCommission

A/59/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUBHASH JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

17 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                  First Appeal No.59 of 2016

                                                                Date of Institution:19.01.2016

                                                                    Date of decision:17.02.2016

 

1. Additional Executive Engineer, UHBVNL, Sub-division Model Town, Yamuna Nagar.
2. The Chairman, UHBVNL, Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

…Appellants

                                      Versus

Subhash Jain son of Sh. Sri Chand Jain, resident of House No.711, Mahavir Colony, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                    …Respondent

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

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:     Mrs. Alka Joshi, Advocate counsel for appellants.

 

                                                ORDER

 

Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

 

1.      In the month of May, 2009 complainant received Memo No.150 dated 12.05.2009 demanding Rs.1,70,507/- from him on the ground of actual consumption when his meter was replaced vide MCO No.131 dated 16.02.2005.

2.      As per opposite parties (in short ‘Ops’) terminal block of electric meter of complainant was installed in the month of July, 2004 which was burnt and replaced vide MCO dated 09.02.2005. At that time the complainant was asked to pay Rs.2,10,342/- on average basis as mentioned in the reply.  After representation of complainant the bill was overhauled and Rs.1,70,507/- were adjusted in the bill. During audit it was found that said amount was payable by the complainant.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed as under:-

“Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the opposite parties not to charge the amount of Rs.1,70,507/- from the complainant which has been shown as average adjustment vide bill No.3270 dated 7.1.2010 and the same is hereby quashed.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, Ops have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      As per facts mentioned above it is clear that the Ops are raising demand for the amount which was due in the year 2005, in the year 2010. This demand is clearly barred as per section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (In short “Act”). Had this mistake been detected for the first time then it would have been a different matter, whereas in this case this meter was already replaced in the year 2004 and department was following this matter regularly. Learned District Forum has rightly came to the conclusion that amount in question cannot be recovered from the complainant. So, the appeal is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed in limine.

7.      The opposite parties-appellants are directed to fix the responsibility of the concerned official, who was responsible for delay. The loss suffered by department be recovered from the concerned employee/employees as per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in  Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 and Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K.Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed  in Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K.Gupta (Supra) as under:-

“When the Court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man.  It is the tax payer’s money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law.  It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund ‘immediately’ but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behavior by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.”

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision if any.

February, 17^th, 2016             Urvashi Agnihotri                   R.K. Bishnoi

                                                Member                        Judicial Member

                                                Addl. Bench                 Addl. Bench

R.K.