Haryana

Ambala

CC/38/2017

Ashutosh Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Keshav Sharma

06 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                           Complaint No.:38 of 2017.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 31.01.2017.

                                                           Date of Decision: 06.07.2018.

 

Ashutosh Gutpa Advocate aged 48 years son of Late Shri Narinder Kumar resident of H.No.2655, Timber Market, Ambala Cantt.

 

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

 

Uttar Hayana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Sub Division No.11, Quality Sub Station, Ambala Cantt. through SDO OP/S Divn.

 

                                                                             …Opposite Party.

 

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

CORAM:        SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                                    

 

Present:                Sh. Keshav Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh. Chandeep Singh Bindra, counsel for the OP.

 

ORDER:

 

                             Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that complainant is having electricity connection bearing No.1557900000 CT-16-1622  and he has been making the payment regularly.  The Op has issued memo No.2080 dated  25.01.2017  wherein an amount of Rs.59736/- was demanded by showing the same outstanding in the name of Rajender Nath against account No.CT-16-1190  in the premises No.2655 Timber Market, Ambala Cantt. as except this account one another account No.CT-16-1590 was running and the OP further demanded 50 % amount equally divided into parts and further threatened the complainant to transfer the above said amount in his current energy bill. The complainant contacted the OP  where it was revealed that the above said connection in the name of Rajender Nath has been disconnected in the year 2011 and the said amount is due for the period of about 2011. The premises of the complainant were never inspected by Area Incharge of the OP and even notice was ever served for this. There is deficiency in service on the part of OP. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 and Annexure C2.

2.                          On notice Op appeared and filed reply wherein several preliminary objections such as maintainability, concealment of material facts, locus standi and cause of action have been taken. It has been submitted that an amount of Rs.59736/- is due against the electricity connection against the account No.CT-16/1190 which was lying installed in the premises in question in the name of Rajender Nath and it was disconnected due to non-payment of the electricity bill vide PDCO No.20001/71 dated 04.11.2011. The notice dated 25.01.2017 has been issued righty and there are two account number CT-16/1590 and CT-16/1622 is running in the same premises  and the amount in question has been demanded in two equally installments. The property in question was inspected vide LL-1 book No.468 Sr.No.19 dated 24.01.2017. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OP has tendered affidavit Annexure RA and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R5.

3.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the evidence and documents on the file carefully.

4.                          The complainant has challenged the memo dated 25.01.2017 Annexure C1 which was issued by the OP for payment of the defaulting amount outstanding against account of Rajender Nath. As per Annexure R2, the defaulting amount Rs.59736/- is pertaining to the year 2012 which was outstanding against Rajender Nath who was consumer in the same premises where the complainant is using the electricity connection and the said notice has been issued on 25.01.2017. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the amount is not recoverable under Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act which reads 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.”

 

The connection of Rajender Nath has been disconnected vide PDCO 20001/7 and this amount is pertaining to year 2011. On the other hand learned counsel for the OP has argued that this amount is not time barred because Rajender Nath was having the connection in the  same premises and the amount can be added in the account of the complainant by way of issuing the notice.

                             We have gone through the Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act.  It is admitted fact that the amount was outstanding against Rajender Nath in the year 2011 and the connection was disconnected on 07.04.2011. Except this notice dated 25.01.2017 Annexure C1 the OP has not issued any notice and even not taken any step to recovery of amount. As per section 56(2) of Electricity Act, no sum 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, hence, the amount  of Rs.59736/- is not recoverable from the complainant being time barred.  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”.

          Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the notice dated 25.01.2017 is hereby quashed and the Op is not entitled to recovery the said amount under the garb of this notice as discussed above. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

ANNOUNCED ON: 06.07.2018                                              

                                   

 

 

                        (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)                            (D.N. ARORA)

                         MEMBER                                                        PRESIDENT