Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/453/2014

Rameshwar S/o Ramjeet - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Avdesh Chaudhary

29 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 453 of 2014.

                                                                        Date of Institution: 30.10.2014.

                                                                        Date of Decision:29.06.2016

Rameshwar aged about 61 years son of Sh. Ramjeet, resident of House No.428, Ward No.22, Gandhi Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                     ..Complainant

                                      Versus

1.         Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Division, Indl. Area, Yamuna Nagar through its SDO (operation).

2.         X.E.N. UHBVN Ltd. Yamuna Nagar.

3.         Managing Director, UHBVN Ltd. Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

                                                                                                                                                    ..Respondents

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

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

Present: Sh.Avdesh Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.

              Sh.R.K.Kamboj, Advocate, for respondents.

 

ORDER   

1.                     The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prayed that the respondents (hereinafter referred as Ops) be directed not to recover Rs.15145/- and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is consumer of the Ops having electric connection bearing account no.YA2YA190892K and has been paying the bills regularly.  Due to some unavoidable circumstances and due to financial crisis the complainant could not pay the bill for the month w.e.f.4.5.2014 to 4.7.2014 for Rs.5526/-.  Thereafter, the next bill dated 27.9.2014 issued by the Ops for Rs.26492/- i.e. Rs.5425.70ps+the due amount of previous bill Rs.5688/- which to Rs.11113.70ps. The complainant contacted the OP No.1 to correct the bill in question but he told that the electricity meter is out of order and not giving proper unit reading for a long time and penalty of Rs.15145/- has been charged and the OP No.1 threatened the complainant that if the amount not paid the connection will be disconnected.  It is further submitted that the meter is running properly without any fault which is evident from the previous bills.  The bill dated 27.9.2014 is null and void not binding upon the complainant, so there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     To prove the case, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A, documents such as bills as Annexure C.1 to C.3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Ops.

4.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as  the complaint is legally not maintainable; the complainant has no locus standi; the complainant is legally stopped by his own act and conduct; the complaint is beyond the scope of definition of consumer; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and further alleged that the true facts are that the account no.YA-19-0892 stands in the name of the complainant and in the month of November-2009 the meter of the complainant was found defective and thereafter the respondents have sent demand bills on average basis up to May-2011 as the meter of the complainant has been replaced by the Ops with new one in May-2011 and thereafter the electric meter of the complainant again replaced with new one because the old meter had become defective.  Thereafter, the internal audit department has overhauled the account of the complainant vide half margin book no.3582, Cr. No.26, but the recovery due to shortfall in electricity units charged in view of the overhauling not being done after meter replacement of defective meters vide sale circular no.U-29/2011 dated 7.9.2011 read with sales circulars No.U-6/2007, dated 29.1.2007 and now the complainant is liable to pay Rs.15145.33ps.  On merits the OPs controvert the plea taken by the complainant and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     To prove the version of written statement, the counsel for Ops tendered into evidence short affidavit of Shri Manoj Grewal, SDO as Annexure RW/A and document such as Half Margin Report as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the 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.                     It is not disputed that complainant is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No. Y42YA490892K and paying the electricity bills regularly. The only grievances of complainant is that the bill dated 27.09.2014 for the period from 4.7. 2014 to 4.9.2014 has wrongly been issued by the OPs wherein an amount of Rs. 15145/- has been added/charged on account of average adjustment by the OPs Nigam and the same is liable to be set aside/quashed.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs argued at length that in the month of November 2009, meter of the complainant was found defective and thereafter OPs have issued bills to the complainant on average basis up to May 2011. The meter of the complainant was changed in the month of May 2011 and again the meter of the complainant replaced with new one as the old meter was defective. Thereafter, Internal Audit Department overhauled the account of the complainant vide Half Margin Book No. 3582, Serial No. 26 but the recovery due to short fall in the electricity unit could not be charged by overhauling his account in accordance wth sale circular No. U-29/2011 dated 07.09.2011 read with sale circular No. U-6/2007 dated 29.01.2007. So, the complainant is liable to pay Rs. 15145.33 and in this way a correct bill has been issued to the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. From the perusal of the half margin report (Annexure R-1) it is clearly evident that meter of the complainant was defective since November 2009 till May 2011 and the electricity bills were issued on the basis of average firstly for 200 units and later on at the rate of 400 units. Further from the perusal of this half margin report, it is clear that meter of the complainant was replaced in the month of May. 2011 and after that again replaced in the month of January, 2012 but the account of the complainant was overhauled by the OPs in the month of September, 2014 and raised an amount of Rs. 15145/- first time in the bill bearing No. 372 dated 27.09.2014. Meaning thereby, the disputed amount has been raised by OPs after a period of more than 2 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.

10.                   Furthermore, before imposing any amount OPs should have issued show cause notice to the complainant, so, that complainant could have get an opportunity to put forward its case if there would have been any objection from the side of the complainant.  It was mandatory for OPs to afford an opportunity of being heard to the complainant before adding the disputed amount in the account of the complainant. However, the OPs did not afford any opportunity to the complainant and straightway added the disputed amount in the electricity bills of the complainant but this action of the OPs is nothing, totally arbitrary and in volatile of the principle of natural Justice hence illegal and   the disputed amount has to be set aside. Holding these views, we have relied upon the observations of Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh State Disputes Redressal Commission in a case Anwar Auto Works Versus The Secretary HPSEB and others 1999(III) CPJ 501.Similiar observation were made by our Hon’ble State Consumer Commission Haryana Punchkula in a judgment dated 3^rd April 2008 while deciding appeal No.604/2008.No additional recovery can be effected from the consumer without hearing the complainant in view of authority, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.Vs Birma Ram 2004(IV) CPJ Page No.59.It is settled law that nobody can be condemned unheard. This act of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service negligence on their part. , Hence, we have no option except to partly allow the present complaint.

11.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and directed the Ops to delete the amount Rs.15145/- from the bill No.372 dated 27.09.2014 shown as average adjustment and in the subsequent bills with surcharge on this amount and issued fresh bill to the complainant.  Ops are further directed to refund this amount if already deposited by the complainant and further to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses. 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 in open court.      

Dated: 29.06.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                       

                                                                                    (S.C. SHARMA)

                                                                                     MEMBER