Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1064/2019

Sanjay Popli - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Engineer, (Nodal office) Electricity - Opp.Party(s)

Amarbir Dhaliwal Adv. & Gurtej Pratap Singh Sandhu Adv.

15 Feb 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	1064 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	23.10.2019
Date of Decision	:	15.02.2022

 

                                       

                       

 

Sanjay Popli s/o Late Sh.Kartar Popli, R/o H.No.520, Sector 11, Chandigarh

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

1]  The Executive Engineer, (Nodal Office) Electricity Division No.1, Sector 9, UT, Chandigarh

 

2]  The SDO, Electricity (Operational) Sub Division No.02, Sector 10, Chandigarh

…. Opposite Parties.

 

 

BEFORE:		SH.RAJAN DEWAN              PRESIDENT
		SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	MEMBER
		SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-	Sh.Manoj Vashith, Adv. Proxy for Sh.Amarbir Dhaliwal, Adv. for the complainant
	Dr.Shriram, Govt. Pleader for the OPs

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

         Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that he was allotted H.No.520, Sector 11, Chandigarh in 2004 and is having electricity connection bearing a/c No.102/1142/052001. Before the allotment of the said house, he was allotted H.No.735, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh which he vacated in December, 2003 due to his transfer to Ferozepur and delivered the possession after his transfer and there is no consumption of electricity from the meter on the part of the complainant. However, to his shock, he received a bill for the billing cycle 02/4 dated 28.05.2019 for an amount of Rs.1,18,306/- (including Rs.1,06,432/- as sundry charges) for the period from 25.02.2019 to 25.04.2019 in which old reading shown as 42174 and new reading as 44354 and as such consumption of 2180 units were shown. According to the complainant, the demand of the alleged sundry charges after a lapse of 15 years is illegal and arbitrary and he is not liable to pay the same. On enquiry, he was informed that the defaulting amount of Rs.48,681/- were pending since 2004 and annual surcharge was being added without any intimation to him.  He alleged to have not received any notice regarding the alleged pending electricity bill for the meter installed in H.No.735, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh and neither any objection was raised regarding the issuance of the new connection due to any such alleged defaulting amount pending or due against him.  According to him as per the allotment rules and regulations of the Chandigarh Administration, the vacation report of the vacated Govt. House is not issued to the employee until NO Dues Certificate of the electricity and water charges is issued to the Maintenance Department. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.   

 

2]       In written statement, the OPs while admitting the factual matrix of the case has stated that the bill amount of Rs.54,809/- raised by the OPs in respect of the electricity consumed by the complainant while residing in Govt. accommodation i.e. H.No.735, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh and he paid part payment of Rs.6000/- only against the said bill. It is further stated that though the complainant applied for issuance of a NOC and permanent disconnection of the electricity supply on 22.10.2003 but he continued to occupy the said house till 21.09.2004 and he had vacated the premises after the authorities initiated the proceedings under the Public Premises Act.  It is further stated that it is not the case of the complainant that he was not aware of the outstanding liability or he has been caught unaware by the requests of the OPs to pay the dues. It is further stated that the complainant received the said bill of Rs.54,809/- and acknowledged the liability by making part payment of Rs.6000/- on 13.10.2004. It is further stated that it is not the case of the complainant that he has not consumed the electricity units.  It has further been stated that the demand has rightly be raised from the complainant and he is liable to pay the same. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertion of OP.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties  and have gone through the documents on record including written arguments.

6]       After considering all the documents and evidence on record, it is made out that the electricity bill demanded by the OPs in the year 2019 vide Ann.C-1 to C-3, pertains to the year 2003-2004 i.e. 15 years old, relating to other government accommodation allotted to the complainant at that time.  In our opinion that the demand raised by the OP in respect of any electricity due from a consumer after a period of more than two years is not legal and justified.  Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 clearly bar the demand and recovery of any such dues from a consumer after a period of two years from the date when such sum became due.  The said section is reproduced as under:-

                Section 56(2) of The Electricity Act, 2003

 

(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.

7]       In view of above, it is clear that the demand raised by the OP is illegal which has certainly caused immense harassment & mental agony to the complainant.  Hence, deficiency in service on the part of OP is clearly established.

8]       Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, the present complaint of the Complainants is allowed against the Opposite Party.  Accordingly, the demand raised by the OP for electricity arrear to the tune of Rs.1,23,124/- vide Bill Ann.C-2, dated 24.7.2019, stands quashed.  The Opposite Party is also directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.15000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing him immense mental agony & harassment as well as litigation expenses.

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.5000/- apart from the above awarded amount.

         The pending applications, if any, also stands disposed off accordingly.    

9]       The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced                                                             

15^th February, 2022  

                                                                        Sd/-                                          (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT                              

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER