Haryana

Ambala

CC/62/2012

RAM SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD - Opp.Party(s)

B.S GILL

30 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                           Complaint case no.        : 62 of 2012

                                                           Date of Institution         : 17.02.2012

                                                           Date of decision             :  30.01.2017

          Ram Singh age 68 S/o Sh. Pritam Singh, R/o House No. 1726/14, Court Chowk, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

          Uttar Haryana Bijlee Vitran Nigam Ltd; through Assistant Executive       Engineer (Ops), SDO (East), Ambala City.

 ….…. Respondents.

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

Present:       Sh. Baljeet Singh Gill, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Saravjeet Singh, counsel for OP.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant is consumer of Electricity with account No. WW10-1094-m/C3-217 since several years in the above mentioned house bearing No. 1726/14, Court Chowk, Ambala City and he has regularly been paying each and every electricity bill but on 21.11.2011, OP has claimed outstanding amount of Rs. 5,387/- from the period of May, 2008 to Sep. 2008 & May 2009 to Sep. 2009 vide its notice bearing No. 1215/CA after a lapse of almost more than 2-1/2 years. Further submitted that under the provision of Electricity Act, no recovery if any, can be made after the laps of two years and the complainant has replied their notice dated 21.011.2011 as well as he made requests to the OP to withdraw their notice and to liquidate above mentioned amount but all in vain. Further submitted that ultimately, the complainant through his counsel issued a legal notice dated 17.12.2011 but neither the OP settled the claim of complainant nor Op ever bothered to give any reply, rather the OP allegedly shown outstanding amount of Rs. 5387/- in its notice bearing No. 1512/CA dated 21.11.2011 has included the same in electricity bill NO. 05484 dated 05.02.2012. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement submitting that the meter installed against the above said stated electricity connection of the complainant was lying sticky/dead stop since November 2006 and the sticky/dead stop meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO i.e. meter change order No. 34/174, dated 11.09.2008. Further submitted that after the change of the meter, the official of UHBVNL inadvertently and due to bona-fide mistake on their part did not overhaul the account of the complainant regarding the three billing cycles immediately preceding the change of meter on the basis of actual consumption recorded by the new meter during the corresponding months of the successive year, as per the policy/rules and regulations of UHBVNL and the mistake was found out during the audit vide half margin bearing memo no. 80, dated 25.10.2011. So, as per the above stated half margin, the account of the complainant for the month of May, June, November of year 2008 was overhauled on the basis of consumption recorded by the new meter, during the corresponding months of year 2009, after overhauling the account, a sum of Rs. 5387/- was found to be due from the complainant towards OP. Hence, a notice bearing No. 1512/CA, dated 21.11.2011 was served upon the complainant calling upon him to show cause as to why the above stated amount of Rs. 5387/- should not be charged/debited in his account.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-4 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has also tendered affidavit as Annexure RW/A alonwith documents as Annexure R-1 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. It is not disputed that the amount Rs. 5387/- has been demanded by vide notice bearing No. 1512/CA dated 21.11.2011 and OP has claimed above said amount which was outstanding for the period from May 2008 to September 2008 and May 2009 to September 2009. The above said amount has been demanded by the department after lapse of almost more than two and half years. It is also not disputed the meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO NO. 34/74 dated 11.09.2008. It is also not disputed, after changed of meter, complainant is depositing the bill regularly. The OP has first time sent the notice Annexure C-1 on 21.11.2011and complainant has replied the notice. As per the record, after receiving the notice, complainant has deposited the above said amount vide receipt dated 20.04.2012 as Annexure C-4 under protest for this purpose he has filed an application to the SDO concerned on 20.04.2012 as Annexure C-3.

                   On the other hand, Ops has taken the stand that they could not demanded the above said amount due to inadvertently and due to bona-fide mistake on their part did not overhaul the account of the complainant regarding the three billing cycles immediately preceding the change of meter on the basis of actual consumption recorded by the new meter during the corresponding months of the successive year, as per the policy/rules and regulations of UHBVNL and the mistake was found out during the audit vide half margin bearing memo no. 80, dated 25.10.2011. Accordingly, they sent the notice to the complainant for depositing the amount.

5                 In view of above said discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the demand of Rs.5387/- by Ops is  time barred as per 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.”

                        The version of Ops that they have demanded the said sum of Rs.5387/- bearing notice No. 1512/CA dated 21.11.2011 (Annexure R-1)  and thus the amount demanded is not time barred.  But 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.  Since, in the present case, the sum demanded was due prior to May, 2008 to Sept. 2008 and May 2009 to Sep 2009 and the first time, OP has sent the notice for depositing the amount on 21.011.2011 and demand has been raised vide bill dated 03.04.2012 which send to the complainant, hence, the amount  of Rs.5387/- 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 opposite party is directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

1. To refund/adjust in the future bill amount of Rs. 5387/- vide bill dated 03.04.2012
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- to the complainant on account of litigation expenses.

                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

                                                                                         Sd/-

Announced on :                                                    (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                        Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member