Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/30/2015

Dilbag Singh S/o Gurbax Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Aggarwal

27 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

​

                                                                      Complaint No.30 of 2015.

                                                                      Date of Institution:20.1.2015.

                                                                      Date of Decision: 27.11.2017.

 

Dilbag Singh aged about 69 years son of Shri Gubax Singh, resident of village Basatianwala, tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                               

                                                                                                               …Complainant.                                    

                                                           Versus

1.       Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula, Haryana through its Chairman/Managing Director.

2.       XEN operation, Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Tehsil Jagadhri.

3.       Assistant Executive Engineer Operation Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Bilaspur.

                                                                                                                ..Respondents.    

Before:         SH. SATPAL …………….    PRESIDENT

                     SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, ………...MEMBER

 

Present:        Sh.Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.

                     Sh.Zile Singh, Advocate, for respondents.

ORDER   :  (SATPAL, PRESIDENT).

1.                 The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter the respondents shall be referred as OPs). 

2.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant was consumer having electricity connection No.JB-17/0122 which continue from the year 2001 and the complainant paid the amount pertaining to the aforesaid connection on 8.11.2001 being the full and final payment.  The Ops illegally and arbitrarily added an amount of Rs.11,497/- in the bill dated 24.3.2010 in the connection No.JB-17/0190. The complainant vide complaint case No.995 of 2010 titled as Dilbag Singh vs. UHBVN etc. challenged the aforesaid amount and the Hon’ble Forum vide order dated 28.5.2012 directed the Ops to delete the amount of Rs.11,497/- from the account of the complainant and to issue the fresh bill to the complainant and further to pay Rs.1100/- as cost of proceedings.  In spite of repeated oral and written requests the Ops failed to adhere the directions as given by the Hon’ble Forum within the stipulated period rather remained continue to raise the bills besides imposing surcharge upon the said amount.  The Ops finally vide bill dated 23.9.2014 adjusted the amount as quashed by this Hon’ble Forum shown in the column of average adjustment and issued bill to the tune of Rs.63497/- and subsequent bill dated 25.11.2014 for Rs.66,931/-.  The complainant requested the Ops to issue the fresh bill as per actual consumption of electrical units duly consumed by the complainant after deducting the amount of surcharge and other charges duly levied since quashing the amount of Rs.11,497/- vide order dated 28.5.2012 but the OP No.3 instead of redress the grievances of the complainant required to deposit the entire amount.  There is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint by directing the Ops not to disconnect the electric connection No.JB-17/0190 of the complainant and to delete/waive of the surcharge and other charges imposed and include in the above bills and further direction to issue a fresh bill as per actual consumption and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as Rs.11,000/- as cost of proceedings. 

3.                 Upon notice the Ops appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections that this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint.  On merits controverted the plea taken by the complainant and alleged that the amount of Rs.11,497/- is on account of sundry charges being the consumption charges of account No.JB17/190 vide sundry No.14/73.  Thereafter, during September-2014 the respondents refunded the amount of Rs.26623/- to the complainant as per Court Order vide sundry No.3/15.  The bill dated 23.9.2014 was rightly sent to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption and as per actual reading after adjustment/refund of amount of Rs.26,623/-, remaining amount is liable to be deposited, failing which, the connection is to be disconnected.  On 16.2.2015 the amount of Rs.31232/- @40% of the outstanding amount as per court order was deposited by the complainant in the bill of Jan-2015.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

3.                 To prove his case the complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit as annexure CA, documents such as copy of bill dated 28.5.2012 as annexure C.1, copy of application dated 14.10.2013 as annexure C.2, copies of bills as annexure C.3 to C.9, copy of order dated 21.1.2015 as annexure C.10 and copies of bills as annexure C.11 to C.24 and closed his evidence.

5.                 The counsel for Ops had tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Munish Sharma, SDO as annexure RA, documents such as copy of ledger as annexure R.1 & R.2.

6.                 During the course of arguments the counsel for the applicant/Ops filed an application for permission to file the affidavit of CA.  Heard.  In view the contents of application and for the proper adjudication of the case the application is allowed and the affidavit of CA is placed on the file as Annexure-R3.  

7.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. 

8.                 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, it is clear that the complainant is consumer of the Ops.  The question which arises before us for consideration is whether the bill dated 25.11.2014 vide which an amount of Rs.63497/- has been added as sundry charges is illegal, excessive or not?

9.                 We have perused the order dated 28.5.2012 passed by this Forum vide which this Forum earlier in the first round of litigation quashed the demand of amount of Rs.11,497/- as raised by the Ops at that time with the directions to Ops to issue the fresh bill to the complainant and also awarded Rs.1100/- as cost of proceedings within one month from the date of said order but surprisingly and unfortunately, the above said order was not complied with for a period of more than about 2 years and thus, the outstanding dues towards the complainant went on increasing with the addition of levy of surcharge/penalty etc. on the aforesaid amount of Rs.11,497/- which was quashed earlier by this Forum vide its order dt. 28.05.2012 and because of these facts the complainant was prevented to deposit the current electricity bills sent to him after the aforesaid order dt. 28.05.2012 on account of consumption of electricity by the complainant.  Though the version of Ops is true and correct that the aforesaid quashed amount which had become Rs.26,623/- with interest has been adjusted and  this amount of Rs.26,623/- has been deducted from the total outstanding amount of Rs.87,192/- but it is also correct that the same has been done after a period of more than 2 years from the date when the demand of amount of Rs.11,497/- was quashed.  Further, it is also an admitted fact that the Ops have firstly added an amount of Rs.11,497/- as sundry charges in the account of complainant illegally and then, after the passing of the order by this Forum quashing the amount did not bother to comply with the said order of this Forum and lastly, the said amount admittedly was adjusted by the Ops in the account of complainant after a lapse of more than 2 years from the date of passing of the order by this Forum and thereby created the unfortunatesituation for the complainant not to deposit even the current consumption charges on which the Ops Nigam had levied surcharge on all the total balance amount including the quashed amount of Rs.11,497/-.  From the perusal of record, it is clear that there was no defect in the meter of the complainant.   The dispute was only with regard to the demand of amount of Rs.11,497/- which had already been quashed by this Forum vide its order dated 28.5.2012 but the same had not been adjusted by the Ops in the account of the complainant at the very initial stage when the aforesaid order was passed.  The version of the complainant seems to be fair, just and reasonable in view of the facts and circumstances explained above that he was prevented from depositing even the current charges demanded by the Ops on account of actual consumption of electricity because of inclusion of aforesaid quashed amount of Rs.11,497/- alongwith surcharge etc. in the later electricity bills sent to him.  Therefore, the Ops by their act and conduct have forced the complainant to file the present complaint dragging him into the second round of litigation. The act and conduct of the Ops is highly condemnable and we are of the considered view that they have been negligent and deficient while performing their duties.  However, the complainant cannot be exempted from the payment of amount on account of actual consumption of electricity but at the same time, he cannot be burdened with the levy of surcharge/penalty etc. in view of the lapses on the part of Ops as discussed above.     

10.               Resultantly, we dispose of the present complaint by directing the Ops to overhaul the account of the complainant by deducting  the amount of Rs.11,497/- on the very first day/date when the amount was imposed by the Ops in the account of complainant and thereafter the amount of actual consumption units be calculated at the prevailing rate of units at that time and to issue the fresh bill to the complainant within 2 months without any surcharge/penalty etc. after deducting the amount already paid by the complainant.  It is made clear that if any amount is found recoverable, the same be recovered from the complainant and if any amount found adjustable, the same be adjusted in the account of the complainant.  Further, the complainant is directed to deposit the due amount, if any, after the receipt of the fresh bill within one month, failing which, he shall be liable to pay surcharge for the defaulting period.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs.   File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court: 27.11.2017.                  

                                                                                (SATPAL)

                                                                                PRESIDENT.

 

                                                                     

                                        (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)          

                                                MEMBER.