Haryana

StateCommission

A/812/2016

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURESH - Opp.Party(s)

N.K.BAJAJ

09 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.812  of 2016

Date of the Institution:06.09.2016

Date of Decision:09.01.2017

 

1.      Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its XEN (IP), Division, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind.

2.      SDO, Sub- Urban, sub Division No.2, DHBVNL, Jind.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

Suresh Kumar son of Sh. Harkesh Saini, resident of Ajmer Basti, Bhiwani Road, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind.

                                                                                                .….Respondent

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

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                    Mr.Suresh Kumar, respondent in person.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Anr. - OPs are in appeal against the Order dated 15.06.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Suresh Kumar has been allowed by directing the OPs not to charge amount of Rs.36,338/- as demanded vide bill No.133439857230, dated 20.07.2015 and to pay Rs.1000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. Briefly stated, according to the complainant, he is a consumer of the OPs vide electricity account No. 1141503UA and has been paying the energy bills regularly. The previous bill dated 11.5.2015 amounting to Rs.3199/-  was paid by the complainant 
   Suresh Kumar in time. The complainant received a bill dated 20.07.2015 amounting to Rs.37,429/- which was excessive as the  consumed units 228  were again shown  to be charged in the current bill. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 to issue the correct bill as per actual consumption charges. However, the opposite party No.1 refused to oblige him by saying that his brother had committed theft of energy and opposite parties had removed his electricity meter and complainant was responsible to pay the amount of that bill. The brother of the complainant was living separate from him in a separate house who was consuming the energy through his own separate meter. The opposite parties had sent the excessive bill to him and threatened that if this bill was not paid then power supply of his house would be disconnected and meter would be removed. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached the District Forum and prayed that opposite parties be directed not to disconnect the power supply and not to remove the electricity meter from the house of complainant as also not to recover the alleged amount of Rs.37,429/- except the actual consumption charges. OP was also prayed to be burdened with a sum of Rs.20,000/-  as compensation on account of mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant. 
3. Pursuant to notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply agitating that the complainant did not have any locus standi  to file the present complaint and that the complainant had not come with clean hands before the Forum as he had suppressed the true and material facts. On merits, it is contended that the premises of the Suresh Kumar complainant were checked and it was found that meter A/C No.AB11-1023 installed in the name of Sh. Suresh Kumar s/o Sh. Harkesh Dutt Ajmer Basti Bhiwani road, Jind and meter A/C No.AB11-0101 were installed in the name of Sh. Harkesh Dutt. Meter already installed- PDCO was effected and was showing defaulting amount outstanding Rs.36,338/-. The opposite parties had transferred the due amount to the complainant’s electricity account No.AB11-1023 on the account of defaulting consumer by adhering to the Instruction No.7.3 of the Sales Manual 2013 of the Nigam which was outstanding against his father Sh. Harkesh Saini in the same premises. Thereafter, the opposite parties disconnected the electricity connection due to non-payment of energy bill.  The complainant had obtained electricity connection vide A/C No.AB11-1023 for domestic purpose after disconnection  of electricity connection of his father in the same premises. The opposite parties have rightly debited the amount of Rs.36,338/- to the complainant’s electricity account relating to his father’s electricity account installed in the same premises. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, hence, dismissal of the complaint was sought by the them. The learned District Forum, however, rejected the pleas raised by the OPs and allowed the complaint by granting the aforesaid relief to the complainant.
4. Against the impugned order, the OP/appellant has filed the present appeal before us reiterating their pleas as already taken before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that two separate meters stood installed in the names of father and son and the complainant has been paying the electricity bills of his connection- A/C No.AB11-1023 regularly. No dues whatsoever were outstanding against him. The second meter related to a different electricity connection which stood in the name of his father and the bills thereof were being paid by his father against A/C No.AB-11-0101. If there were some dues outstanding against the father’s electricity connection, the OPs were not entitled to transfer the same against the account of the complainant. The relationship of the father and son and the possession of the premises by them did not justify in law to transfer the liability of one electricity connection owner to the other.
5. Otherwise also, when the premises in question were inspected, the brother of the complainant Ram Niwas was using the electricity connection, in question and no arrears were shown as outstanding against the complainant. It was later in the year 2013 just to cover up the delay, the premises were again inspected and the amount in question was transferred to the account of the complainant. This was a clear violation of the provisions contained in 56 (2) of Electricity Act, which prohibited recovery of any arrears after expiry of two years.
6. The learned District Forum has rightly found the OPs as liable for the deficiency in service on their part and has correctly accepted the complaint. We fully agree with the well reasoned order passed by the learned District Forum and dismiss the appeal which is wholly without any merit.
7. The statutory amount of Rs.500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

January 09th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.