Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/153/2014

Uma Shashi W/o Shashi Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Harinder Singh

09 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No.  153 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 13.03.2014.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 9.11.2016

Uma Shashi aged about 65 years w/o Shashi Kumar R/o 143 A/L Model Town Yamuna Nagar.      

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

 

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vidyut Sadan Sector 6 Panchkula through its Managing Director.
2. XEN (O.P.) Division UHBVN Ltd.
3. SDO (O.P.) Sub Division UHBVNL Ltd. Model twon Khalsa College Road, Yamuna Nagar. 

 

                                                                                                            …Respondents. 

 

BEFORE          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh. Harinder Kumar, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

                        Sh. Satish Sangwan Advocate, counsel for respondents.    

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Uma Shashi has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondent (hereinafter referred as OPs be directed to issue correct bill after withdrawing the sundry charges and surcharge which is shown in the bill bearing No. 6114 dated 10.02.2014 and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.   

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that she is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No. Y43YT 143425-X and paying the bills regularly. The complainant received a Memo No. 5027 dated 30.08.2013 for an amount of Rs. 55368/- from the OPs commencing from July 2009 to June 2012.  In the said notice, it was also written that as per checking made by the Audit Party, the audit party had found the abovesaid amount due towards the complainant. In the abovesaid illegal notice neither complete detail of charges nor the  reasons for which charges were levied were given nor the tariff applicable with complete calculation were sent to the complainant. On receiving the notice, the complainant alongwith her husband immediately visited the office of OP No.3 and raised objections on the abovesaid illegal notice and Op No.3 considered her objections and withdrew the notice dated 30.08.2013 bearing memo No. 5027 issued to the complainant and subsequently the Ops issued a bill bearing No. 6132 dated 13.10.2013 for the period commencing from 21.07.2013 to 21.09.2013 amounting to Rs. 7539/- which was paid by the complainant on 23.10.2013 and thereafter the complainant paid the bills regularly. In the month of February, 2014, the complainant received a bill No. 6114 dated 10.02.2014 for the period commencing from 21.11.2013 to 21.01.2014 and in that bill the Ops had illegally demanded a sum of Rs. 1,52,715/- as sundry charges and a sum of Rs. 5273/- as surcharge alongwith a sum of Rs. 18190/- as arrears of previous bill. On receiving the bill No. 6114 dated 10.02.2014, the complainants’ husband immediately visited the office of OP No.3 and said that the electricity consumption for the period commencing from 21.11.2013 to 21.01.2014 is only 367 units and current bill for these units for a sum of Rs. 1805.83 is only due, towards the complainant but the OPs flatly refused to supply any information to the complainant nor agreed to withdraw the sundry charges, charges and adjust Rs. 10,000/- paid by the complainant and further threatened to disconnect the electricity connection. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is legally not maintainable; the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by her own act and conduct. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum, hence the complaint of complainant is liable to be dismissed. The true facts are that the electricity meter of the premises of complainant was overhauled from July 2009 to June, 2012 by the Audit Party on the basis of electricity consumption which is legal, valid and as per rules and regulations of the department. The Audit Party had found the amount of Rs. 55,368/- vide memo No. 5027 is still outstanding due towards the complainant and a notice was served upon the complainant and in that notice it was mentioned that the complainant was required to attend the office within 7 days from the date of receipt of notice, if she had any objection in this regard otherwise the abovesaid amount would be debited in the next energy bills. The complainant has not deposited the amount of Rs. 55,368/- inspite of repeated requisites, demands and notices etc. and the said amount was added in the bills. As such, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant just to avoid herself from depositing the outstanding amount due towards the complainant. 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.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence photo copies of documents such as Notice memo No. 5027 dated 30.08.2013 for Rs. 55368/- as Annexure C-1, Bill dated 13.10.2013 as Annexure C-2, Bill dated 11.12.2013 as Annexure C-3, Bill dated 10.02.2014 as Annexure C-4

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs, without tendering any documents closed the evidence of the OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents attached with the file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant is having an electricity connection bearing account No. Y43YT 143425-X. The only contention of the complainant is that OPs have demanded a sum of Rs. 55368/- vide memo No. 5027 dated 30.08.2013 and thereafter demanded a sum of Rs. 1,52,715/- vide bill No. 6114 dated 10.02.2014 showing as average adjustment, which are illegal and liable to be quashed as the complainant is paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against the complainant.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs hotly argued that the meter of the complainant was overhauled from July 2009 to June 2012 by the Audit Party on the basis of electricity consumption, which is legal valid and as per rules and regulations of the Department. The audit party had found the amount of Rs. 55,368/- and the same has been demanded by the Ops vide memo No. 5027 dated 30.08.2013 but the complainant has not paid the same, hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as the OPs has totally failed to convince this Forum that how they calculated the amount of Rs. 55368/- which was demanded by the OPs from the complainant vide memo No. 5027 dated 30.08.2013. Even, the learned counsel for the OPs has miserably failed to explain before this Forum that how and on what ground subsequent amount of Rs. 1,52,715/- has been shown in the bill bearing No. 6114 issued on 10.02.2014 for the period from 21.11.2013 to 21.01.2014. As the OPs has totally failed to explain that on what ground and basis the amount of Rs. 55368/- and after that Rs. 1,52,715/- as shown in the impugned bill bearing No. 6114 and memo No. 5027 dated 30.08.2013 has been calculated, hence we have no hesitation to mention here that this amount has been falsely imposed by the OPs against the complainant. Furthermore, mere mentioning that audit party audited the account of the complainant from July 2009 to June 2012 and leveled a sum of Rs. 55,368/- against the complainant is not justified. The OPs Nigam has also not placed on file any calculation or notice issued to the complainant prior to imposing the amount or any letter for personal hearing and in the absence of any cogent evidence or opportunities for personal hearing, the OPs cannot impose any amount/penalty/surcharge etc. on the complainant for a period of more than 4 years i.e. 2009 to 2012.

10                    We have also perused the sale circular No. U-63/2006 issued by the OPs in which also it has been clearly mentioned that complete detail of charges with reasons/ basis of charging of assessment/penalty, period of assessment, the applicable tariff/rates and complete calculation should be supplied to the consumer alongwith notice. SDO (Operation) will consider the case after receipt of the reply from the consumer within 7 days and will pass speaking order in consultation/ concurrence of audit party but in the present case no such speaking order or any calculation or detail of any charges, reasons/ basis of charges of assessment/penalty and applicable tariff/rates has been placed on file. Even, the OPs has also not placed on file Audit Report in support of their version. Hence, we have no option except to quash the notice issued vide memo No. 5027 dated 30.08.2013 (Annexure C-1) in which an amount of Rs. 55,368/- was demanded from the complainant and subsequent amount of Rs. 1,52,715/- demanded vide bill No. 6114 dated 10.02.2014.    

11.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the opposite parties not to charge the amount of Rs. 55368/- demanded vide memo No. 5027 dated 30.08.2013 and subsequently amount of Rs. 1,52,715/- demanded vide  bill No. 6114 dated 10.02.2014  and the same is hereby quashed alongwith surcharge etc. They are further directed to issue the correct bill to the complainant, if any. 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. 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: 9.11.2016.

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

                                                            (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                            MEMBER