Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1004/2011

Sumer Chand Gupta S/o Banarsi Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Subhash Chander

14 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 1004 of 2011.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 21.09.2011       

                                                                                          Date of decision: 14.02.2017

 

 Sumer Chand Gupta, aged about 76 son of Shri Banarsi Dass, resident of Bawa Colony, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

         …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. UHBVNL, Sector-6, Sakti Bhawan Panchkula, through its Chairman.
2. AEE/SDO, UHBVN, City Sub Division, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
3. Executive Engineer, UHBVN Ltd. Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                  ...Respondesnts

 

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

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

 

Present:           Shri Subhash Chand, Advocate for complainant

                         Shri R.K. Kamboj, Advocate for OPs.

ORDER

 

1                        The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is having account No.BMS-073 which was installed in the premises of the complainant. Complainant received a memo No.224 dated 03.01.2011 issued by the OP no.2 to the complainant vide which an amount of Rs.76,997/- has been levied to the account of the complainant and the language of said memo is reproduced as under:

“Notice for making payment on account of N & P checking Report:- Your Connection was checked by M & P Team on 17.01.2011. In the checking report it is pointed out that meter is recording slow by 28.65%. Accordingly your account has been overhauled and amount has been debited to your account, so it is requested to make the payment of this amount within 7 days.”

 On the basis of alleged inspection by M & P Team, the said amount was added to Bill No.32 under the head sundry charges and the OPs threatened to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant, if the said amount was not deposited within 7 days. Feeling aggrieved from the behaviour of the OPs, the complainant immediately forwarded a letter to the OP No.2 on 22.02.2011, requesting therein to deposit the amount of Rs.76997/- under protest and resultantly the same was deposited by the complainant under protest. Memo No.224 dated 03.01.2011 and amount of Rs.76997/- added in bill No.32 dated 15.02.2011 is liable to be set aside. The complainant has visited and requested the OPs many times for the refund of the amount charged by them from the complainant but the officials of the OPs department was not giving any satisfactory reply and are putting off the matter on one or the other pretext. Lastly prayed for directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.76,997/- along with interest and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-  on account of mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.  

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objection such as complaint of the complainant is not legally maintainable as the disputes regarding theft of energy has to be decided by designated Special Court as per provision contained in Section 135A and 154 of the electricity Act; complainant has got no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint; complainant is legally estopped by his own act and conduct; complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Court. The true facts are that, the electricity connection bearing account No.BMS-073 released in the name of complainant at his premises and on 17.01.2011, the officials of the OPs as well as M&P team visited the premises of the complainant for periodical checking the accuracy of the electricity meter  checked and found that the electricity meter of the complainant was 28.65% slow, due to less voltage in red face, CT-PT chambers open and found red fact cable heated up and PT wire got carburized. The same has been set right and accrue and found within permissible limit. Accordingly, on that account a sum of Rs.76997/- has been imposed upon the complainant vide memo No.224 and after finding out the contents of the checking correct, the complainant  has voluntarily deposited the imposed amount, with the answering OPs, which is rightly been imposed upon the complainant by the OP department after following the due procedure of rule and regulations of the sale circular of the Nigam and on merit it is stated that the complaint is beyond the scope of definition of the consumer as given in the consumer protection act, the section 2(O) does not covers a consumer of electricity. The amount has rightly been imposed upon the complainant after proper checking of the premises of the complainant by the officials of the department. The memo has been got prepared after proper checking. As such there is no negligence on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     In support of the case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW/A and photocopy of Bill as Annexure C-1, notice for making payment as Annexure C-2, photocopy of letter dated 22.02.2011 written by complainant to OP No.2 as Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, no evidence was produced by the ld. counsel for the OPs and the evidence of the OPs was closed by Court order vide order dated 01.09.2016. However, at the time of filing reply, OPs filed some documents i.e. short affidavit of Shri SL Goel, SDO (OP) UHBVN and photocopy of meter checking as Annexure R1.

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

7.                     The only grievances of the complainant is that an amount of Rs. 76997/- has been wrongly and illegally added on the ground that checking team pointed out that meter was recording reading slow by 28.65%, which is liable to be quashed.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP (Nigam) argued at length that electricity connection of the complainant was MS Power connection for running the industry of plywood and draw our attention towards the letter dated 22.02.2011 (Annexure-C-3) written by the complainant himself to the AEE UHBVN in which the complainant has himself admitted that the electricity connection was MS Power Connection. Learned counsel for the OPs further draw our attention towards the electricity Bill Annexure C-1 and argued that there was 69.140 connected load of the electricity connection in question from which also it is duly evident that electricity connection of the complainant was commercial unit and lastly argued that complainant was fully satisfied with the report of MMT checking team and hence he deposited the amount of Rs.76997/- along with other charges on 23.02.2011 whereas the present complaint has been filed after 07(seven) months from the date of deposit an amount in question. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued thatr this Forum have no jurisdiction to try, hear and decide the present complaint, as assessment of the duty for unauthorized use of electricity, tampering of meter and distributors of meter and calibration of electric current are matters of technical nature, which cannot be decided by this Forum and dispute regarding theft of energy has to be decided by designated special Court as per provisions contained in Section 135A and Section 154 of Electricity Act, 2003 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs Nigam, From the perusal of the electricity bill (Annexure C-1) it is duly evident that there was connected load 69.140 of the electricity connection of the complainant in question. Further, complainant himself has admitted in his letter dated 22.02.2011 (Annexure C-3) sent to the AEE UHBVN, Jagadhri that he was having a MS Power Connection. Even in the checking report it has been clearly mentioned that the type of industry was plywood under the name and style of Trimurti Wood. Even, the complainant has admitted in Para 4(i) of the complaint that no alleged inspection has ever been conducted in the “Business Premises” of the complainant as alleged by the OP. Meaning thereby from all corner it is duly established that complainant was having an electricity connection for commercial use. It is also not the case of the complainant that he was using electricity connection in question for his livelihood.

10.                   From the above noted facts we are of the considered view that complainant does not fall under the deficiency of consumer, defined under Section 2(1)(d) which is reproduced as under:

 (ii)                  [ hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [ but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]

            [ Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, “ commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment]”

11.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above the complaint of the complainant have no merit and the same is hereby dismissed being not maintainable before this Forum. However, complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Court for redressal of his grievances, if so advised. No order as to cost. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. A copy 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: 14.02.2017.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                          DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER