STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :    187 of 2017

Date of Institution:    17.02.2017

Date of Decision :     09.02.2018

1.     Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban No.1, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Kaithal.

2.     Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its Executive Engineer, Kaithal.

3.     Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its Secretary O/O Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

Sukhdev Singh s/o Sh. Gurdayal Singh, Resident of Village Lander Keema, Sub Tehsil Siwan, District Kaithal  

                                      Respondent-Complainant

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

Argued by:          Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri C.P. Tiwana, Advocate for respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

        Opposite Parties are in appeal against the order dated January 16^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.                Sukhdev Singh – complainant (respondent herein) was provided electricity connection bearing account No.MM55-0993Y by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL)-Opposite Parties (appellants herein) for running his tubewell installed in the agricultural land owned by him situated within the revenue estate of Village Lander Keema.  The complainant used to pay electricity bills regularly without any default. The complainant received electricity bill dated April 28^th, 2016 total amounting to Rs.66,043/- including an amount of Rs.1981/- as surcharge if payment is made beyond the date fixed. Earlier complainant was also having a domestic electricity connection in his house situated at Village Lander Keema which was disconnected by the opposite parties on November 04^th, 2008 as the complainant could not make payment of the total electricity bills including arrears as Rs.62,519/-. The opposite parties added an amount of Rs.62,519/- in the electricity bill issued on April 28^th, 2016 which was concerned with the domestic electricity connection which has already been disconnected. The opposite parties have illegally added an amount of Rs.62,519/- in the electricity bill of the complainant concerned with his tubewell connection after expiry of two years period of limitation as provided under the Haryana State Electricity Act.

3.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to set aside the sundry charges amount of Rs.62,519/- mentioned in the electricity bill dated April 28^th, 2016; to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and to direct the opposite parties not to disconnect the electricity connection.

4.                The opposite parties in their written version have taken plea that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint and that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. It is pleaded that earlier the complainant was having a domestic electricity connection in his house which was disconnected by the opposite parties on November 04^th, 2008 for want of payment of the total bill amounting to Rs.62,519/- including arrears and surcharge. Later on the arrears of electricity charges amounting to Rs.62,519/- were added in the electricity bill issued to the complainant regarding electricity connection in his name provided for running his tubewell as sundry charges. An amount of Rs.62,519/- has been added in the electricity bill issued in the name of the complainant lawfully in accordance with the provisions of law. The complainant is liable to make payment of the above mentioned amount and prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed with cost.

5.                Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.

6.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated January 16^th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum, the appellants-opposite parties have filed First Appeal No.187 of 2017 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint.

7.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

8.                It is admitted fact that earlier complainant was having a domestic electricity connection in his name in his residential house at Village Lander Keema.  It is also admitted fact that earlier domestic electricity connection bearing account No.KU-14/3114 in the name of the complainant was disconnected on November 04^th, 2008 due to non-payment of electricity bill amount including arrears and surcharge Rs.62,519/-. It is also admitted fact that the complainant was provided electricity connection for running his tubewell installed in the agricultural land owned by him situated within the revenue estate of Village Lander Keema.  It is also admitted fact that prior to April 28^th, 2016, the complainant used to pay electricity consumption charges regarding his electricity connection bearing account No.MM-55/993Y regularly in routine.

9.                What happened, the complainant received his electricity bill No.4077 dated April 28^th, 2016 (Exhibit CH) amounting to Rs.66,043/- including an amount of Rs.62,519/-  as sundry charges. The opposite parties have taken plea that an amount of Rs.62,519/- was added in the electricity bill Exhibit CH issued on April 28^th, 2016 being arrears of domestic electricity connection in the name of the complainant which was disconnected on November 04^th, 2008 in view of paragraph No.3 of the instruction No.7.3 (Exhibit R-6).

10.              During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has urged that legally and technically the opposite parties were not authorised to add arrears of electricity bill of a domestic electricity connection in the electricity bill regarding electricity connection provided for running tubewell. After close perusal of paragraphs No.3 and 4 of instruction No.7.3 (Exhibit R-6) placed on the file, we feel that legally and technically there was no illegality in adding the arrears of electricity bill of a domestic electricity connection in the electricity bill of an electricity connection provided for running a tubewell in the name of the same person. We feel much discussion is not needed on this point of controversy.

11.              During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite parties were not entitled to raise claim regarding the disputed amount of Rs.62,519/- beyond the period of limitation as provided under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.  There is no controversy of any type that the domestic electricity connection in the name of the complainant was disconnected on November 04^th, 2008.  It is evident from the account statement (Exhibit R-1) that at the time of disconnection of the domestic electricity connection the total amount due towards the complainant/consumer was Rs.55,354/- in the month of December, 2008, arrear of the amount regarding this electricity connection is mentioned as Rs.62,519/-.  Now the situation is clear that domestic electricity connection was disconnected on November 04^th, 2008 and at that time an amount of Rs.55,354/- including the amount of surcharge was due towards the complainant. The complainant refused to make payment of the electricity bills and due to this reason, the opposite parties had to disconnect the electricity connection bearing account No.KU-14/3114.  In this way, cause of action arose in favour of the opposite parties to recover arrears of electricity bill amount on November 04^th, 2008 the day domestic electricity connection was disconnected. The period of limitation in this case starts from November 04^th, 2008. The present complaint was filed by the complainant on May 13^th, 2016 after more than a period of seven years and six months which is certainly beyond the period of limitation as provided under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. For perusal and proper appreciation Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is reproduced below:-

12.             Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, reads as under:-

“(2) 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 licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.”

13.              A reading of the aforesaid provision shows that no sum could be recovered from the consumer after the period of two years from the date when it became first due. It clearly appears that the opposite parties raised demand of Rs.62,519/- after more than a period of seven years and six months i.e. beyond the period of limitation.

14.              Keeping in mind all these circumstances, much discussion is not needed of the other documents adduced in evidence by both the parties. We find no illegality in the impugned order dated January 16^th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum.  Hence, findings of the learned District Forum regarding awarding an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation are also held valid and justified. Resultantly, findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.

15.              The statutory amount of Rs.1,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

CL