Haryana

Ambala

CC/09/2010

PARVEEN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

P.S SHARMA

01 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

Complaint Case No. : 09 of 2010

Date of Institution    : 12.01.2010

Date of Decision      :  01/05/2015

 

Parveen Kumar son of Sh. Sita Ram R/o 603, New Model Colony, Ambala City.                            

……Complainant.

           

Versus

 

1.         Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Executive Engineer, Operation Division, UHBVN, Ambala City.

 

2.         The Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division, Model Town, UHBVNL, Ambala City.

 

                                                                                                ……Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C. SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. ANSUYA BISHNOI, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. P.S. Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. Sarvjeet Singh, Adv. for OPs.

 

ORDER.

 

                        Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date), has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that he is having a domestic electricity connection for his house from the OPs vide electricity connection bearing account No.MT15-2583-W (old No.D1-1934) and is making payment of the electricity being consumed by him regularly and never defaulted in making the payment of the bills received from the OPs on account of consumption of electricity.  It has been further alleged that due to fast running of the meter, a wrong bill was issued to him on 13.04.2007 by the OPs and ultimately the complainant submitted an application on 30.04.2007 on the basis of which the meter was checked by the staff of the opposite party on 12.05.2007 which was found defective and as such the same was changed vide MCO No.63/287 effected on 21.08.2007 and the account of the complainant was overhauled and an amount of Rs.47038/- was withdrawn from the bill of the complainant in the bill dated 17.09.2007 payable upto 27.09.2007 which was for an amount of Rs.40607/- by adjusting the payment made in the excess by way of part payment in the previous bills. Thereafter, the said amount, which was withdrawn by the OPs has not been carried forward in the bills and the complainant is depositing the bills of the electricity being consumed by him regularly without any default. It has been submitted that a bill dated 26.12.2009 payable upto 11.01.2010 for an amount of Rs.51,6,29/- was received by the complainant and he was surprised to see  that  in the said bill an amount of Rs.47721/- has been again shown as sundry charges. On enquiry,  the OPs told that the said amount has been debited and demanded as advised by the Audit Party  and threatened  to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant in case said amount is not deposited by him. The complainant further submitted that the amount of Rs.47721/- demanded vide bill dated 26.12.2009 from the complainant as sundry charges is illegal, null & void and against the principles of natural justice.  Hence, the complainant aggrieved by the act of the OPs, filed the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint as well as suppression of facts from the Forum whereas the true facts are that the complainant moved an application before the OPs on 13.04.2007 to the effect that energy meter of complainant is defective on account of fast running. Acting upon the application, the OPs changed the meter vide MCO No.63/287 dated 27.07.2007 and as per request of the complainant, his electricity account was also overhauled for a period of six months immediately preceding the date on which the meter was changed i.e. 21.08.2007 and the complainant was not charged as per the reading recorded by the replaced meter rather charged as per the consumption of complainant during the corresponding months of the previous year.   So, as per the aforesaid adjustments, a sum of Rs.47721/- was credited to the account of the complainant.  However, it was made clear to the complainant that the aforesaid adjustment is conditional subject to approval by the Audit party and complainant had agreed the same.  The entry to this effect was made in the sundary register of the OPs where the abovesaid adjustments was shown to have been made subject to verification by audit party. Since, the Audit Party, vide their Audit observation No.48 dated 03.11.2009, did not approve  the adjustment made in the account of the complainant hence,  he was asked to  pay the alleged adjusted amount and the same has been shown in the bill dated 26.12.2009.  On merits, it has been stated that no injustice has been done to the complainant  and the amount  debited in the bill dated 26.12.2009 is legally due against the complainant. Hence prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                     In evidence, the counsel for complainant tendered affidavit Annexure CX alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-11 on behalf of complainant and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, the counsel for OPs  has tendered affidavit Annexure RW1/A alongwith documents Annexures  R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.  

4.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.  The counsel for the complainant  has  argued that an electricity connection bearing No.MT15-2583-W (old No.D1-1934)  is installed in the name of complainant and he was regularly paying electricity bills for the said connection but in the month of  April 2007, meter of the complainant became defective as it was running fast, so the complainant moved an application on 30.04.2007.  On checking, the meter was found defective and it was changed by the Ops. The account of the complainant was also overhauled and thereby an amount of Rs.47038/- was withdrawn from the bill dated 17.09.2007.  But, after a gap of two years, the complainant received bill date 26.12.2009 wherein an amount of Rs.47,721/- have been shown as sundary charges.  On enquiry by complainant, he was told by the Ops that the amount was withdrawn in the year 2007 but the same has been again debited in his account on the advise of Audit Party, which is illegal and has been debited wrongly and the same is liable to be set aside.

                        On the other hand, the counsel for the Ops argued that on the application of the complainant, the meter of the complainant was ordered to be replaced vide MCO No.63/287 dated 27.07.2007 and finally the meter was changed on 21.08.2007 and thereafter, the account of the complainant was overhauled for a period of six months preceding the date on which the meter was changed i.e. on 21.08.2007 whereby an amount of Rs.47721/- was credited/adjusted to the account of complainant. However, at the time of the adjustment, it was made clear to the complainant that the aforesaid adjustment in the account of the complainant is conditional subject to approval by the audit party and he had agreed to same but later on, the audit party vide its audit observation bearing memo No.48 dated 03.11.2009 did not approve the adjustments made in the account of the complainant and directed the recovery of Rs.47721/- from the complainant. Therefore a sum of Rs.47721/- was again debited in his account vide bill dated 26.12.2009.  Thus the demand is legal one and complainant is liable to pay the same.  

5.                     After hearing both the parties and going through the relevant documents, it is clear from the Annexure R-1 that the meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No.63/287 dated 27.07.2007 effected w.e.f. 21.08.2007 and an amount of Rs.47721/- was  credited to the account of the complainant but after a gap of two years i.e. in the bill dated 26.12.2009, an amount of Rs.47,721/- was again debited in the account of the complainant as sundary charges/allowances on the report of Audit Party under the garb of overhauling of his record which is illegal in the light of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that 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 arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.  Besides it, complainant counsel has also placed reliance on the case law Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Rajji Bai, reported in 2009(1)CLT Pg. 526 ( State Commission, Haryana) wherein it has been held by our State Commission that “Demand raised by Ops after two years on the basis of objection raised by the audit party is barred  in view of Section 56 of Electricity Act, 2003.   In this way, the Ops have wrongly added/debited  an amount of Rs.47721/- in the account of complainant by violating the provisions of Electricity Act as the MCO was effected on 21.08.2007 and the alleged arrears have been demanded on 26.12.009.  As such, the complainant is entitled for the relief qua waiving off the amount of Rs.47721/- demanded vide bill dated 26.12.2009.

                        Resultantly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops not to charge an amount of Rs.47721/- from the complainant which has been demanded vide bill dated 26.12.2009.  Further, if any amount has already been deposited by the complainant qua the alleged arrears of Rs.47721/- imposed in bill dated 26.12.2009, the same be also refunded to him alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization.   Besides it,  the complainant is also entitled for the compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of harassment , mental agony and litigation expenses etc.  Order must be complied with by the Ops within 30 days from the date of receipt of order  failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copies be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

                                                                                                          Sd/-

ANNOUNCED:1.5.2015                                                        (A.K. SARDANA)

                               PRESIDENT                

 

                                    Sd/-

                           (S.C. SHARMA)

                                                                                                         MEMBER

 

                                     Sd/-

                           (ANSUYA BISHNOI)

                                                                                                          MEMBER