Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/696/2013

Chaman S/o Kishori Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vikrant Singh Chauhan

17 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No.  696 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 24.09.2013.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 17.05.2016

Chaman aged about 68 years son of Shri Kishori Lal resident of Village Kanhari Kalan, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                         …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Chairman, Sector 6, Panchkula.  
2. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Yamuna Nagar, through Executive Engineer. 
3. S.D.O. (OP), Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                                                          …Respondents. 

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. B.S.Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

              Sh. D.S. Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for respondents.    

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Chaman has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs be directed not to charge an amount of Rs. 13,364/- as sundry charges and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.   

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is having a tubewell connection in his name bearing account No. Y44-BL-0006 for the last many years and paying the bills regularly on fixed basis i.e. Rs. 375/- per month on account of energy charges and Rs. 22/- per month on account of line service charges and Rs. 38/- on account of capacitor rent. The complainant has paid Rs. 4000/- as arrear on 30.04.2013 and thus only Rs. 4677/- were remaining towards the complainant in the bill for the month of June, 2013. However, in the bill for the month of July, 2013, an amount of Rs. 13,364/- has been shown as sundry charges against the complainant which is totally illegal, liable to be quashed and the complainant had tried best at his level but the OPs had not disclosed anything about this amount rather the OPs put the pressure on the complainant to deposit the bill amount of Rs. 18,546/- dated 12.07.2013. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency or negligence in service on the part of Ops. The true facts are that the amount of Rs. 7274/- were outstanding against the complainant as bill amount but due to inadvertent computer mistake the entry to the amount of Rs. 7274/- wrongly posted in the account of the complainant, later when this fact came to the notice of the OPs, the said entry was reverted and the said amount was demanded from the complainant after adding the surcharge alongwith current bill amount i.e. Rs. 6090/-. As such, an amount of Rs. 13,364/- i.e. Rs. 7274/- previous bill amount plus Rs. 6090/- current bill amount is outstanding against the complainant and complainant is bound to make the payment of the same. On merit, reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint being no deficiency in service.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Bill dated 10.04.2013 as Annexure C-1, Bill dated 10.06.2013 as Annexure C-2, Bill dated 12.07.2013 as Annexure C-3, Bill dated 10.02.2013 as Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.  

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence photo copy of register as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents attached with the file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     The only grievances of the complainant is that an amount of Rs. 13,364/- has been wrongly added as arrears in the bill dated 12.07.2013 by the OPs without giving any notice whereas only an amount of Rs. 4747/- was due as arrear against the complainant which is evident from the copy of Bill dated 12.07.2013 (Annexure C-3) and also referred the other bills dated 10.04.2013 (Annexure C-1), Bill dated 10.06.2013 (Annexure C-2 and Bill dated 10.02.2013 (Annexure C-4, from which it is evident that the alleged amount i.e. Rs. 7274/- + Rs. 6090/- total Rs. 13,369/- was not due against the complainant.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs argued at length that an amount of Rs. 7274/- was due against the complainant as arrear and after adding the surcharge amounting to Rs. 6090/- a correct bill has been sent by adding an amount of Rs. 13,364/- with the current bill to the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops and the complaint is liable to be dismissed and draw our attention towards Annexure R-1 Photo copy of register in which an amount of Rs. 7274/- has been shown as arrear and Rs. 6090/- has been added as surcharge vide entry No. 237/BL16 vide voucher No. 124/35/149 dated 14.01.2010.

9.                     We have perused the impugned bill dated 12.07.2013 (Annexure C-3) in which an amount of Rs. 13364/- has been added as arrear alongwith current charges and it is evident that the electricity bills were sent to the complainant on fixed basis charging Rs. 375/- monthly and an amount of Rs. 4747/- was due as arrear against the complainant. We have also perused the photo copy of register (Annexure R-1) in which an amount of Rs. 7274/- has been shown as wrong entry and Rs. 6090/- has been levied as surcharge against the complainant vide voucher no. 124/35/149 dated 14.01.2010. From the perusal of this entry, it is clear that disputed amount of Rs. 13,364/- has been raised by the OPs after a gap of 2 years, as this entry is dated 14.01.2010 but this amount has been levied in the bill dated 12.07.2013 (Annexure C-3). Moreover, no notice of personal hearing has been given to the complainant prior to leveling the amount of Rs. 13,364/- on the complainant. Even, the OPs has not filed any cogent evidence i.e. account statement or previous bills for which period the amount of Rs. 7274/- has been shown as arrear. As per the facts mentioned above, it is clear that OPs are raising demand in the year July, 2013 for the amount of Rs. 13,364/- which was due in the year January 2010. This demand is patently illegal in the light of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that 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.

10.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, the complainant is entitled for relief.

11.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Ops not to charge the amount of Rs. 13,364/- from the complainant which has been shown in the bill dated 12.07.2013 and the same is hereby quashed and if any amount has been deposited against this bill, the same be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant.  OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 500/-as litigation expenses. However, opposite parties are directed to fix the responsibility of the concerned officials who were responsible for delay. The loss suffered by the department be recovered from the concerned employees as per the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in case titled as Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujrat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010 5 SCC page 459. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 17.05.2016.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                                MEMBER