Haryana

Ambala

CC-226-2012

PARVEEN BALA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD - Opp.Party(s)

SUDHIR GAKHAR

18 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 226 of 2012

                                                          Date of Institution         : 24.08.2012

                                                          Date of decision   : 18.01.2017

 

          Parveen Bala aged 63 years old wife of Sh. Ram Murti resident  of house          No. 23, Manav Vihar, Near D.P.S. School, Hissar Road, Ambala City.

 

……. Complainant.

 

1.       Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Sub Division, East Ambala City                 through its SDO (Operation)

2.       Uttar Haryana Bijli vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Sadan, Sector-6,          Panchkula through its M.D.

 

 ….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

 

Present:       Sh. Sudhir Gakhar, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Saravjeet Singh, counsel for the Ops.

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant having a electricity connection bearing A/C No. HU 113711-A, which is in the name of complainant which is installed at the residential premises of the complainant and using this electricity connection for domestic purpose only. Further submitted that the electricity energy on the said connection regularly since its installation i.e. 12 years and complainant is regularly paying the electricity bill in time and without any break and nothing is pending against her. Further Submitted that she received the electricity bill No. 05457 issued date 23.07.2012 which shows that the actual consumption charge for the period 30.04.2012 which shows that the actual consumption charge for the period 30.04.2012 to 30.06.2012 is Rs. 4178/- as actual amount of bill+ Rs. 3145/- as sundry charge/allowance total Rs. 7323/- to be paid upto 08.08.2012 and on the receipt of the bill in question complainant immediately rushed toward the office of the Ops, but the Ops did not hear the complainant properly and procrastinated it on lame excuse on the ground that this sundry charge has been assessed by the private party of the contractor and that party checked the premises of the complainant and further Ops added that this amount has been assessed on the running of slow meter and in future 12.5% of bill amount shall be added in every bill on account of slow meter. The sundry charge is illegal, ultra-virus and mala-fide and without any justification. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed written statement submitting that the UHBVNL under an agreement had outsourced the job of checking the accuracy7 of the meters installed against the electricity connection of its consumers of Yadav Measurement Private Limited hereinafter called as YMPL and in the month of July 2011, the meter of the complainant was checked by the employees of YMPL on behalf of UHBVN and the same was found to be slow by 12.07%. So, the Ops charges/debited a sum of Rs. 2,958/- in the account of the complainant on account of meter being slow by 12.07% vide sundry No. 32/78 dated 08.06.2012. Further submitted that the sum of Rs. 2,958/- had been charged/debited in the account of complainant by working out the actual consumption of the complainant for a period of past one year immediately proceedings 28^th of February 2012 had the meter not been slow by 12.07% on the basis of recorded consumption of the complainant during the above stated period and the actual consumption of the complainant during the above stated period and the actual consumption of the complainant during the above stated period of one year came to 4174 units. During the above stated period of one year, the slow meter of the complainant recorded the consumption of 3644 units. Thus the difference between the actual consumption and recorded consumption came to 530 units and the charge for the above stated 530 units were worked out to be 2958 which the complainant is liable.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A along with documents as annexure C to C-2 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops has also tendered his affidavit as Annexure RW1/A alongwith documents  as Anexure R-1 to R-3 and close his evidence.

4.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that sundry charges has been added in the bill dated 23.07.2012 for the period 30.04.2012 to 30.06.2012. When the complainant received the above said bill, he approached to the office of the opposite party why they have added the sundry charges without giving the notice to the complainant and  to clarify on which basis they have added the sundry amount Rs. 3145/- in the bill. The OP stated that UHBN under an agreement has outsourced the job accuracy of the meter installed against the electricity connection of its consumers to Yadav measurement Private Limited in the month of July 2011, the meter of the complainant was checked by the employees of YMPL on behalf of UHBVN and the same was found to be slow by 12.7%. So, the opposite parties charged/debited a sum of Rs. 2,958/- in the account of the complainant on account of meter being slow by 12.7% vide sundry No. 32/78 dated 08.06.2012. On this point complainant had filed the complaint on the ground that no procedure had been followed before imposing the penalty and they never served any notice to the complainant explaining her position neither any report has been served to the complainant nor the checking was conducting in the presence of the complainant or their family members. So, imposition of the sundry charges is illegal not recoverable. Whenever, the status of the meter in the earlier bills is showing ok. The complainant relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana in which the Court has held that “Sundry charges cannot be charged without show cause notice to consumer. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1) (g)- Sundry charges added in electricity bill of complainant. Held. No show cause notice issued to the complainant before imposing penalty. Ops have miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was ever served upon the complainant. In this way, they did not act a per provisions contained in the Electricity Act and it is deficiency in service. Consumer can ask the service provider to give him to details on the basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case”. 

                   On the other hand OP are argued that the sundry charges has been imposed because meter of the complainant was checked by the employee of the YMPL in the month of July 2011 and the meter of the complainant was found slow by 12.7% accordingly they rightly added sundry charges.

5                 We are of considered view that no show cause notice issued to the complainant before imposing of penalty. Ops have miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was ever served upon the complainant. In this way, they did not act as per provisions contained in the Electricity Act and it is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Resultantly, we have come to the conclusion that the Ops have illegally demanded the amount as sundry charges Rs. 3145/- in bill dated 23.07.2012 and same is hereby quashed. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      Not to charge the amount of Rs. 3145/- imposed vide bill dated 23.07.2012.

(ii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                   It is clarified that if the complainant had deposited the sundry charges then the Ops are also directed to refund the above said amount or adjusted in future bill. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :18.01.2017                                

                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                 (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                      Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member