Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/829/2011

Rakesh Kumar S/o Mam Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mukesh Sehgal

18 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 829 of 2011.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 05.08.2011 

                                                                                          Date of decision: 18.11.2016

 

Rakesh Kumar aged about 47 years son of Shri Man Chand, resident of village Kottar Khana, Sub Tehsil Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                  …Complainant.

                                        Versus

1. UHBVN through Sub Divisional Engineer, OP Sub Division, UHBVN Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Sub Divisional Engineer, OP Sub Division, UHBVN Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                          

                                                                                                                ...Respondents

                                 

                                                                                                          

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh. Mukesh Sehgal, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. Jaipal Singh, Advocate for respondents.

ORDER

 

1                      The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs Nigam) be directed not to charge an amount of Rs.9,166/- demanded vide bill dated 09.08.2011 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 domestic electricity connection bearing account No.Y44YMO81675L and paying the electricity bills regularly. The complainant has received a bill dated 09.08.2011 for a sum of Rs.10,013/- and after scrutiny of the impugned bill it came to the notice of complainant that an amount of Rs.9,166/- has been shown as arrear. Upon this, complainant immediately visited the office of OPs and requested to correct the same but all in vain. Even the official of the OPs threatened the complainant that if the complainant did not deposit the bill, in that case, the electricity connection will be disconnected. 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 in service on the part of OPs; the complainant has concealed the true facts from this Forum. The true facts of the case are that staff of the OPs Nigam inspected the premises of complainant where the electricity connection bearing account No.Y44YM081675L was installed and it was found that the complainant was using energy from two Feeders i.e. one from Kottar khana and second from Pinjora and the load was found 2.855KW against sanctioned load of 1.2 KW. As such a penalty of Rs.5,771/- was imposed on the complainant which was challenged by the complainant before this Forum but his complaint was dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure R3). The said penalty amount was deposited by the complainant. However, lateron, it was found by the Audit party that the penalty of Rs. 5,771/- was charged less and in fact the penalty comes to Rs.12,000/- and as such after deducting amount already paid i.e. Rs.5,771/-, a sum of Rs.6,229/- (12,000/- minus Rs.5,771) has been claimed from the complainant vide bill for the month of 5/2011 which the complainant is liable to pay but the complainant instead of making the payment has filed the present complaint which is liable to be dismissed and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photocopy of bill dated 11.10.2011 as Annexure C-1, bill bearing No.2134 dated 23^rd July, 2011 as Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Rajan, UDC of UHBVN as Annexure RW/A and affidavit of Shri Rajbir Singh, SDO as Annexure RW/B and documents such as photo copy of account statement as Annexure R-1, Internal Audit Report half margin as Annexure R-2, copy of judgment of CC No.792/2006 as Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the counsel of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     It is admitted fact that complainant is consumer of the OPs Nigam vide electricity connection bearing account No. Y44YM081675L. The only grievance of the complainant is that an amount of Rs.9,061/- has been illegally and wrongly added in the bill dated 09.08.2011 issued by the OPs for a total amount of Rs.10,013/- whereas nothing was due against the complainant as he was paying the electricity bills regularly.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs argued at length that the premises of the complainant was inspected and checked by the official of the OPs and at the time of checking it was found that the complainant was using the energy unauthorisedly from two feeder and the load was found 2.855 KW against the sanctioned load of 1.2KW. As such, as per sale circular No.3/05, a penalty of Rs.5,771/-  was imposed on the complainant for which the complainant file his earlier complaint bearing No.792 of 2006. However, complaint was later on dismissed on 28.11.2007. Learned counsel for the OPs Nigam further argued that after dismissal of the complaint, the complainant deposited the penalty amount of Rs.5,771/-. However, Audit party of the OPs Nigam now pointed out that Rs.5,771/- i.e. penalty previously charged was less whereas it should be Rs.12,000/-  and after adjusting previous amount paid by the complainant the remaining amount of Rs.6,229/- has been added in the Electricity Bill dated May, 2011 and the complainant  is liable to pay the same, hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and requested for dismissal of the complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs Nigam. From the perusal of the copy of judgment Annexure R-3, it is duly evident that OPs Nigam imposed a penalty amount of Rs.5,771/- after checking the premises of the complainant, upon which the complainant filed a complaint bearing CC No.792 of 2006 challenging the penalty amount of Rs.5,771/- imposed by the OPs. However, this complaint was dismissed on 28.11.2007 and complainant deposited an amount of penalty of Rs.5,771/- with the OPs Nigam. Now the version of the OPs, that penalty of Rs.5,771/- was wrongly calculated as Rs.5,771/- whereas it should have been Rs.12,000/- because at the time of checking the total load was found 2.855 KW whereas the sanctioned load was 1.2KW and penalty should be imposed Rs.12,000/- (Rs.4,000/- per KW). Hence, remaining amount of Rs.6,229/- has been rightly added is not tenable as once the OPs Nigam has charged the penalty whatsoever from the complainant then how the OPs can be permitted to revise the penalty amount lateron after a period of near about 05 years. As the previous penalty of Rs.5,771/- was imposed by the OPs Nigam in the bill dated 04^th July, 2006 whereas this alleged remaining amount of Rs.6,229/ -  has been demanded by the OPs Nigam in the Bill bearing No.2134 dated 23^rd July, 2011. Further, the OPs Nigam kept mum during the pendency of the previous complaint bearing No.792 of 2006 which was decided on 28.11.2007 (Annexure R-3). Even the OPs Nigam has not placed on file any circular according to which, the penalty has been calculated. Further prior to recalculating the alleged penalty, no notice of personal hearing was issued to the complainant by the OPs Nigam and also failed to mention this fact in the internal Audit Report of half margin Annexure R-2 dated 19^th April, 2011 and in support of this report neither any affidavit of the auditor or any SDO has been filed nor this report has been duly proved. Even, the OPs Nigam also failed to convenience this Forum that how they calculated the previous penalty amounting of Rs.5,771/- and what was the calculation as no such previous circular or calculation sheet has been placed on file.

10.                   On the other angle also, the OPs Nigam cannot charge the amount after a period of two years as per Section 56(2) wherein it has been mentioned that:

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.

11.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that an amount of Rs.6,229/- has been wrongly and illegally added by the OPs Nigam in the impugned bill dated 23^rd July, 2011 and the same is hereby quashed. Further, OPs are directed to issue correct bill after deleting the amount of Rs.6,229/- along with Surcharge to the complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 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.

Pronounced in open court: 18.11.2016.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                          DCDRF Yamuna Naga

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER