Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/256/2012

Dinesh Sharma S/o M.N. Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Karnesh Sharma

11 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No.  256 of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 6.3.2012

                                                                                    Date of decision: 11.9.2015.

 

Dinesh Sharma son of late Sh. M.N.Sharma, Mohindra Petrol Pump, Yamuna Nagar District Yamuna Nagar.         

 

                                                                                                                     …Complainant.

 

                                    Versus

 

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, OP. Sub Division Model Town, Yamuna Nagar through its Assistant Executive Engineer.
2. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Executive Engineer, OP Division, Yamuna Nagar through its Executive Engineer.

 

                                                                                                                  …Opposite parties. 

 

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Suresh Jaiswal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Dharamvir Singh, Advocate, counsel for OPs.    

 

ORDER

 

                        Complainant Dinesh Sharma has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that necessary directions be issued to the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) to quash the illegal amount of Rs. 40,318/- payable on 25.1.2012 and further prayed to refund the amount if any paid under the orders of this Forum and also be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and further to pay Rs. 5500/- on account of litigation expenses.            

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is consumer of OPs under account No. Y43YT226668F for his domestic connection and he is paying the bills of consumption regularly without any default.  Hence, there is a relationship of consumer and supplier between the complainant and opposite parties.  It has been further stated that OPs have issued a bill of Rs. 41,230/- payable on 25.1.2012 in which an amount of Rs. 40,318/- has been added illegally on account of sundry charges. After receiving the bill, the complainant approached to the opposite parties, who asked the complainant to deposit the current bill. The amount of Rs. 40,318/- in the bill alongwith surcharge is illegal, against the law and facts and alleged amount shown under Sundry charges in the bill is liable to be quashed on the grounds that the OPs have not given any notice before imposition of seizable amount of Rs. 40318/- on account of sundry charges. The OPs have failed to inform the complainant on what basis the calculation and how they have arrived at this particular amount of Rs. 40318/- added in the bill in question. The OPs have acted in a very negligent and deficient manner and have caused harassment, mental agony and financial loss to the complainant by their deficient acts for which the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi to file the present complaint, estopped from filing the present complaint, complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merit it has been mentioned that the amount of Rs. 40,318/- has been rightly added in the bill of the complainant due to overhauling the account of complainant being the defective meter replaced in the month of April 2009. The OPs have charged minimum consumption charges from the complainant for the period from June 2008 to February 2009 i.e. four bills cycles due to defective meter. The OPs have charged the minimum consumption charges from the complainant for for 2480 units for the aforesaid period i.e. June 2008 to February 2009. The account of the complainant was overhauled as per new meter consumption for four bills cycles i.e. 12195 units and out of the said units, the already charged units i.e. 2480 were deducted and the remaining 9715 units were charged from the complainant and calculated a sum of Rs. 40318/- which has rightly been added in the bill of the complainant.. In this way, they have not caused any harassment to the complainant as alleged and thus they are not deficient in service as alleged by the complainant. In the end, the opposite parties has requested for ordering dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, complainant’s counsel has tendered affidavit of Sh. Dinesh Sharma as Annexure CW/A and document such as Photo copy of bill dated 8.1.2012 as Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Sudesh SDO, (OP) UHBVNL Ltd. Yamuna Nagar as Annexure RX and documents such as photo copy of Internal Audit Report as Annexure R-1 and photo copy of MC dated 1.12.2008 as Annexure R-2 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 placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     After hearing both the parties and going through the relevant documents, it is admitted on the record that meter of the complainant was changed on 1.12.2008 and an amount of Rs. 40,318/- has been pointed out by the Internal Audit Department in the month of November 2011 i.e. on 2.11.2011 vide memo No. 65 after near about three years which 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.

8.                     Learned counsel for the complainant also argued at length that the OPs cannot charge any amount by way of sundry charges and referred the citation Haryana State Electricity Board Versus Jawahar Lal Sinlga, 1994(1) Civil Court Cases page 68 (Haryana) wherein it has been held that Unless consumer is shown to have either tampered the meter or consumed more electricity than shown in the bills, he cannot be arbitrarily burdened with additional charge- It is the primary responsibility of the Board to record correct metering- Provisions of law does not authorize the Board to levy additional charges on the basis of averages merely on the ground because the consumption of electricity was allegedly low in view of the Board Officials. Order of District Forum directing the refund of the excess amount wrongly charged with interest 18%. Upheld Learned counsel for the complainant also referred the another case law titled as M/s Arjan Dass Brij Lal & Company, 1998(1) CPC page 351 wherein it has been held that Electricity-Surcharge- Respondent department had included a sum of Rs. 54,096/- in the current electricity bill-No reason whatsoever given by Department for charging the amount from the complainant-District Forum also did not give any cogent reason for rejecting the claim-H.S.E.B. directed not to recover surcharge at the rate of 2% per month compounded monthly and included in the bill-Appeal allowed and also referred the case law titled as D.K. Industries Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Operation Sub Divn. No.5 & another, 111(1998) CPJ page 273 wherein it has been held that complaint-Excessive Electricity Bill-Sundry charges- Electricity bills paid regularly-Meter not slow- No pilferage- No indication that bills were provisional during the period of 5 years- Consumer cannot be fastened with sundry charges arbitrarily-Demand not justified-Set aside.

8.                     From the perusal of Meter Change Order (Annexure R-2) it is clear that the MCO was effected in the month of December 2008 and OPs have demanded an amount of Rs. 40318/- pertaining to the billing month varying between April 2009 to October 2010 through bill dated 8.1.2012, under the garb of overhauling of his account by private audit party (Annexure R-1) which is patently illegal in the light of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

9.                     It is also mentioned in the Audit Observation Report that the abovesaid proposed amount of the recovery may be charged after proper verification of the record and instructions. Meaning thereby the official of the Internal Audit Department was also not of the confirmed view that an amount of Rs. 40318/- is chargeable or not. It is also pertinent to mention here that the meter of the complainant was changed on 1.12.2008 whereas Internal Audit Department has pointed out the alleged recovery on 2.11.2011 i.e. near about 3 years. It shows that the local official of account department of the opposite party has not overhauled the account of the complainant after changing the meter, which is gross negligence on the part of OPs.  It shows that the local official of the opposite parties were totally negligent and hence, there is great deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. As such the complainant is entitled for relief qua waiving of the amount of Rs. 40318/- levied by the opposite parties vide Bill No.5860 dated 8.1.2012 (Annexure C-1).          

10.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the opposite parties not to charge the amount of Rs. 40318/- out of bill dated 8.1.2012 amounting to Rs. 42466/- from the complainant which has been shown as average adjustment vide Bill No.5860 dated 8.1.2012 and the same is hereby quashed. The OPs are also directed to refund the amount, if any, paid by the complainant under the order of this Forum. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 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: 11.9.2015.

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                                MEMBER