Haryana

Karnal

CC/544/2019

Narinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The S.D.O. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Om Parkash Kashyap

12 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 544 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.22.08.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:12.05.2022

 

Narinder Singh son of Shri Amar Singh, resident of village Raipur Roran, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     SDO Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Division Amin, District Kurukshetra.

 

2.     Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its XEN, Sector-12, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

                   

 Argued by: Shri O.P. Kashyap, counsel for complainant.

                   Shri Virender Sachdeva, counsel for OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is consumer of OPs and having an electricity connection bearing account no.AJ27-2036-L installed outside of the house of the complainant. The complainant has been regularly paying the electricity charges to the OPs without any default of payment and as per the latest bill the status of meter is OK. The OPs issued the electricity bills bearing no.03216 dated 19.04.2019 for the period of 07.03.2019 to 07.04.2019 and in the said bill the actual consumption of unit is 159, but the payable amount in said electricity bill is Rs.32,496/- as the OPs added Rs.31,461/- as other type/allowance and the complainant was shocked to receive the electricity bill of a huge amount. After receiving the electricity bill, the complainant approached to the office of OPs and asked about the allowance of Rs.31,461/- then the official of the OPs told that one Naresh Kumar son of Shri Ram Gopal having an electricity connection for flour mill and he closed the said electricity connection, but an amount of Rs.31,461/- was due against him and to recover the said amount the department added the said dues of Naresh Kumar in the electricity bill of the complainant. On hearing the said reason, the complainant requested the official of the OPs to correct the electricity and to deduct the remaining electricity bill of abovesaid Naresh Kumar from the electricity bill of complainant and receive the electricity bill as per actual consumption units, but the official of the OPs postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and in the last week the official of the OP threatened to the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount, then the official of the OPs are bound to disconnect the electricity supply from the premises of the complainant. It is averred that complainant has no concern with the abovesaid Naresh Kumar in any manner and if the complainant will force to deposit the said wrong amount of electricity bill, then the complainant would suffer an irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 20.05.2019 through his counsel to the OPs in this regard but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the amount of Rs.31461/- regarding the same premises as earlier said premises were owned by Naresh Kumar from whom the complainant purchased the same. The OPs issued notice to the complainant to make payment of the said amount as it relates to same premises hence he is liable to pay the same but he did not bothered for same and filed this false and baseless complaint. It is further pleaded that the meter installed in the premises of the complainant remained defective from the period from 4/2013 to 3/2016 and the audit party overhauled the account of the complainant for the said period vide half margin report and as per the said half margin report an amount of Rs.33461/- were found due towards the complainant and an intimation in this regard was given to the complainant, but complainant did not bother to pay the same and as such same was debited by the OPs in the account of the complainant. Hence, the abovesaid bill issued by the OPs is correct, legal and valid. There is no delay in demanding the said amount from the complainant because immediately after the audit report the OPs raised the demand of said amount. It is further pleaded that complainant neither deposited the abovesaid amount nor the current energy charges and as such after debiting the previous arrears, surcharge and interest accrued thereon were debited in the account of the complainant. The OPs have been issuing the bill to the complainant regularly, but the complainant did not bother to deposit the same. Ultimately, the notice bearing memo no.1248 dated 21.08.2019 has been sent to the complainant, which is quite legal and valid. It is further pleaded that in the same premises one Naresh Kumar son of Shri Ram Gopal was having a electricity connection of his flour mill and he closed his business and has not paid the outstanding amount of Rs.31,461/- of the Nigam. The said premises has been purchased by the complainant from Naresh Kumar and as such complainant is liable to pay the abovesaid amount as same relates to same premises. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint..

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of legal notice Ex.C1, acknowledgment Ex.C2, electricity bill dated 19.04.2019 Ex.C3, bill dated 12.08.2016 Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 27.02.2020 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Mohit SDO Ex.OP1/A, copy of sale circular no.U-3/2013 Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 30.11.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is having an electricity connection no.AJ27-2036-L in his house. The OPs issued the electricity bills bearing no.03216 dated 19.04.2019 for the period of 07.03.2019 to 07.04.2019 and in the said bill the actual consumption of unit is 159, but the payable amount in said electricity bill is Rs.32,496/- as the OPs added Rs.31,461/- as arrear. After receiving the said bill, the complainant approached to the office of OPs and enquired about the same then the official of the OPs told that one Naresh Kumar son of Shri Ram Gopal having an electricity connection for flour mill and he closed the said electricity connection, but an amount of Rs.31,461/- was due against him. The said amount was due as same relates to same premises, which has been purchased by the complainant from Naresh Kumar and as such complainant is liable to pay the said amount. He further argued that complainant has no concern with the abovesaid Naresh Kumar in any manner. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Learned counsel for OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the amount of Rs.31461/-were due  regarding the same premises as earlier said premises were owned by Naresh Kumar from whom the complainant purchased the same. The OPs issued notice to the complainant to make payment of the said amount as it relates to same premises hence he is liable to pay the same but he did not bothered for same . The meter installed in the premises of the complainant remained defective from the period from 4/2013 to 3/2016 and the audit party overhauled the account of the complainant for the said period vide half margin report and as per the said half margin report an amount of Rs.33461/- were found due towards the complainant and an intimation in this regard was given to the complainant, but complainant did not bother to pay the same and as such same was debited by the OPs in the account of the complainant.. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             Admittedly, complainant purchased the premises from one Naresh Kumar, who was having an electricity connection in the said premises. It is also admitted that the electricity connection was also transferred in the name of complainant by the OPs. This fact also proved from the bills Ex.C3 and Ex.C4.

10.           As per the version of the OPs the said Naresh Kumar was also having an electricity connection no.AL-98/1018 which was PDCO due to non-payment of the bill amount. It is also case of the OPs that meter installed in the premises of the complainant remained defective from 4/2013 to 3/2016 and the audit party overhauled the account of the complainant from the said period vide half margin report and as per the said half margin report an amount of Rs.33,441/- were found due towards the complainant.

11.           OPs have failed to produce the alleged audit report during the course of evidence. The amount alleged by the OPs are for the period of 4/2013 to 3/2016 and said amount was due towards the electricity connection no.AL-98/1018 which was belonging to one Naresh Kumar. The electricity connection of the OPs bearing no.AJ27-2036-L has been transferred in the name of the complainant after clearance of the all dues after transfer of the premises in the name of the complainant.  The OPs are to recover the said amount from Naresh Kumar and not from the complainant. Hence, we are of the considered view that the amount of Rs.31,461/- added in the bill of the complainant is not justified. Thus, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

12.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs not to shift the disputed bill amount i.e. Rs.31461/- in the electricity bill of the complainant. We further direct the OPs to issue the subsequent bill as per actual consumption and complainant will bound to pay the same. We further direct the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 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 record room after due compliance.

Dated:12.05.2022                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member