Haryana

Ambala

CC/131/2016

Salamudeen - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rupinder Singh

10 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                                                                    Complaint Case No. :    131 of 2016

       Date of Institution    :     08.03.2016

                                                       Date of Decision      :     10.06.2016

 

Salamudeen son of Sh. Katabdeen R/o village Wasalpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

 

……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

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

 

2.         Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Ambala City.

 

3.         The Sub-Divisional Officer (Op.), Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sub Division Naraingarh, Tehsil Naraingarh, District  Ambala.

 

……Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. Rupinder Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, Adv. counsel for Ops.

 

ORDER.

 

                        Complainant has filed the present complaint averring therein that he is having a domestic electricity connection no.NN-65-945 and is consuming 150-170 units bimonthly and is paying electricity bills regularly. Complainant has further contended that  he received memo no.2709 dated 14.08.2015 whereby a sum of Rs.16342/- on account of overhauling  by Audit Party has been demanded. Thereafter, complainant personally approached to Op and requested for giving detail qua illegal demand by them but they failed to specify as to why the said amount has been added to his account. So a legal notice dated 23.12.2015  was served upon Ops to the effect that complainant is ready to deposit the bill on the basis of actual consumption and the bill no.4240 due to be paid on or before 28.12.2015 has not been raised on the basis of actual consumption rather the same has been raised without any justification. Thereafter, complainant sought information under Right to Information Act,  regarding Audit Report and the consumption of the electricity from 01.01.2015 to 30.11.2015 but as per complainant, he was shocked to know that neither any detail has been mentioned in the audit report  nor any clarification has been made in the report. Thus complainant has contended that the act & conduct of Ops amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice committed by them. Hence, the complainant has preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and tendered written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of  complaint and suppression of material facts etc.  On merits, Ops have urged that the bill sent to the complainant is regarding consumption of two months plus charges for replacement of old meter by new one as per Govt./Nigam’s Instructions since the previous meter installed at the premises of complainant was dead, so bill sent to the complainant to the tune of Rs.16342/- is correct one and complainant is liable to pay the same and requested for dismissal of the complaint since there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-8 and closed his evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OPs has tendered affidavit of Sh. Yash Pal Rana, SDO UHBVNL as Annexure RX alongwith document i.e. Meter Change Order dt.15.01.2014 as Annexure R-1 and closed their evidence.

4.                     We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the document memo No.2709 dated 14.08.2015 (Annexure C-1)  whereby the Ops have demanded a sum of Rs.16342/- from the complainant on account of overhauling of Account by Audit Party. Further from perusal of document i.e. bill due to be paid on 28.12.2015 (Annexure C-7), it reveals that a sum of Rs.16342/- have been added in this bill without any details. So, complainant sought information from the Ops  under RTI, Act to the effect that “Please provide certified copy of Audit Report containing complete break-up,  how the outstanding amount of Rs.16342/- has been carried out”. In reply to that, OP supplied information through document Annexure C-3 which is also not a satisfactorily explanation. As such, the counsel for complainant has argued that Ops have arbitrarily levied the amount of Rs.16342/- in electricity account of complainant.  

                        On the other hand, counsel for OP has argued that  old meter of complainant was defective, as such, it was changed with new one vide  Meter Change Order dated 15.01.2014 (Annexure R-1) and thus the bill sent to the complaint was correct  one and complainant is liable to pay the same.

5.                     At the very outset, from the perusal of document Internal Audit Half Margin Report (Annexure C-4) so supplied by OP under RTI Act, it reveals that an amount of Rs.16341.58 paise has been made outstanding against the electricity account of complainant for the period from August 2012 to April 2014 by the Audit Party. Thus without commenting further aspect of the case, we have come to the conclusion that the said demand of the Ops is clear cut violation of Section 56(2) of  the Electricity Act which says as under:-

                                                “56. Disconnection of supply in default of payment.

                                                (2)       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 arrears of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.”

                        As such, the Ops have adopted unfair trade practice by imposing a sum of Rs.16342/- vide memo no.2709 dated 14.08.2015 under the garb of sundry charges on the basis of Audit Observation Report even without producing any record before the Forum relating to period of alleged dead/burnt meter installed at the premises of complainant and thus we are of the view that the aforesaid amount has been levied by the Ops arbitrarily. Further, our Hon’ble State Commission (Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula)  has held in one similar case titled as Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rajji Bai reported in 2009(1) CLT Pg. 526 that “Electricity Act, 2003, Section 56-Sales Circular No.27/96-Electricity bill-Sundry Charges-Demand made by Ops on the basis of objection raised by the Audit Party-Ops were duty bound to supply the necessary details of the audit report and to give a proper notice in terms of the Sales Circular which it has not complied with-Demand also barred in view of Section 56 of the Act, 2003-Order of the District Forum setting aside the demand upheld”.

            Therefore, in view of the facts discussed above, we have no hesitation in holding that Ops have  not only committed unfair trade practice with the complainant rather they are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed and Ops are directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

1. Not to charge sundry charges amounting to Rs.16342/- as demanded vide memo no.2709 dated 14.08.2005 and correct the bills relating to Account of complainant accordingly. However, the complainant is directed to deposit the remaining amount, if not deposited earlier, within 30 days from today alongwith simple interest  @ 9% per annum w.e.f. due date of bill i.e. 28.12.2015 (payable by cash).
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- to the complainant on account of litigation expenses.

 

                                    The aforesaid directions must be complied with by the Ops within the stipulated period otherwise the complainant shall be entitled to get the said order enforced under due provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED:10.06.2016                                

                                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                                  (A.K. SARDANA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

                                                                                                                 Sd/-

                 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)  

                                                                                                               MEMBER