Haryana

Kaithal

315/20

Renu Kataria - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Prem Chhabra

30 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 315 of 2020.

                                                               Date of institution:   29.09.2020.

                                                               Date of decision:      30.11.2023.

 

Renu Kataria w/o Shri Madan Lal, r/o Kataria Ice Cream, near Sangam Palace, Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban No.1, UHBVN, Kaithal.
2. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through XEN, UHBVN, Kaithal.
3. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Secretary, Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

...Opposite Parties

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Prem Kumar Chhabra, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Shri Ramesh Kumar Rana, Adv. for the Opposite Parties.

                  

ORDER - NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is having a NDS connection bearing Account No.8839873134 and paying the electricity bills regularly. She is running a ice-cream confectionary shop with her husband for their livelihood. She was shocked to receive an electricity bill of Rs.160313/- dated 15.09.2020 vide bill No.1776906 and moved an application to the OPs dated 17.09.2020, on this, OP No.1 checked the meter on 19.09.2020 and found there was OK condition, but the OPs threatened to disconnect their connection, upon which, her husband fell ill and heart beat was increased and received treatment. OPs are illegally, arbitrarily and against the law imposing the sundry charges, which is liable to be set aside. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service, on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.    

3.             Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and filed written statement, stating therein that old meter for the account No.KZ24/4102 NDS in the premises of complainant which was in the name of Lalit Kataria son of complainant was removed through PDCO No.1268780446. A checking report bearing No.972/5 dated 30.03.2018 was prepared regarding the removal of old meter of complainant. The meter was packed in the presence of husband of complainant who signed the checking report at the time of removal of old meter. Thereafter, the complainant got installed a new connection/meter in the same premises in her name. The M&T lab made observations that “upper case melted but meter terminal block in healthy condition. Due to meter upper case melted meter sr. no. could not verified. (2) Meter final reading verified. (3) It seems that it was tried to burn the meter intentionally (4) Here in this case no physical evidence of any tempering of the meter internal is observed/found. The Audit Wing of OPs found that the old meter/connection was for NDS category but inadvertently the complainant was charged for DS category. Thereafter, as per NDS category as per pending units shown in lab a notice/memo No.1984 dated 03.01.2020 and then another notice No.663 dated 22.06.2020, for short assessment was issued to Lalit Kataria for the amount of Rs.117149/- requesting him to pay the same within 7 days after receipt of said notice, otherwise the said amount will be charged in his next bill from another account No.ABXU/4286. The said notices were duly received and signed by Lalit Kataria. But he did not response. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.117149/- was duly charged/transferred in account No.ABXU-4286 of the complainant. The OPs are legally empowered to recover the short assessment amount. The complainant has filed the present complaint just to harass and humiliate the OPs and prayed for dismissal the same.

4.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith documents Annexure-A1 to Annexure-A15.

5.                On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R17.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant was having a NDS connection bearing Account No.8839873134 and paying the electricity bills regularly. He further argued that the complainant was shocked to receive an electricity bill dated 15.09.2020 for Rs.160317.77 showing Rs.1,17,049/- as sundry charges. He further argued that the OPs had earlier issued memo/notice on 03.01.2020 to his son Lalit Kataria for the same connection, against which, a civil suit is pending adjudication before the Civil Court, Kaithal, then how OPs can send the bill for the same amount to her, which is liable to be set aside and prayed for allowing the present complaint. In order to support his case, he placed reliance upon case law titled Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Hanuman Rice Mills and Others, (2010) 08 SC CK 0088.

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has argued that old meter for the account No.KZ24/4102 NDS in the premises of complainant which was in the name of Lalit Kataria son of complainant was removed through PDCO No.1268780446. A checking report bearing No.972/5 dated 30.03.2018 was prepared regarding the removal of old meter of complainant. He further argued that thereafter, the complainant got installed a new connection/meter in the same premises in her name. The Audit Wing of OPs found that the old meter/connection was for NDS category, but inadvertently the complainant was charged for DS category and thereafter, as per NDS category as per pending units shown in lab a notice/memo No.1984 dated 03.01.2020 and then another notice No.663 dated 22.06.2020, for short assessment was issued to Lalit Kataria for the amount of Rs.117149/- requesting him to pay the same within 7 days after receipt of said notice, but he did not response. He further argued that thereafter, the amount of Rs.1,17,149/- was duly charged/transferred in account No.ABXU-4286 of the complainant and the OPs are legally empowered to recover the short assessment amount.

9.                It is admitted fact that son of complainant namely Lalit Kataria was having old meter account bearing No.KZ24/4102, which was removed PDCO on 30.03.2018, by the OPs and thereafter, the complainant got installed a NDS electricity connection bearing No.8839873134, in her name, on the same premises.

10.              The grievance of the complainant is that the OPs had sent a bill dated 15.09.2020 (Annexure A1), showing Rs.1,17,049/- as sundry charges to her, despite the fact that memo/notice dated 03.01.2020, sent by the Ops to her son Lalit Kataria for the same amount, against which, a civil suit is pending adjudication before the learned Civil Court, Kaithal Annexure R-9/Mark-X. Whereas, on the other hand, the OPs contended that old meter of Lalit Kataria was removed PDCO and thereafter complainant got installed new connection on the same premises and then on checking the old meter of Lalit Kataria, it was found by Audit Wing of OPs that the old meter was for NDS category, but inadvertently complainant was charged for DS category and then a notice was sent to said Lalit Kataria on 03.01.2020 for Rs.1,17,149/- Annexure R-5, but he did not pay the same and then Rs.1,17,149/- was duly charged/transferred as sundry charges, in the account No.ABXU-4286 of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs drawn attention of this Commission towards Sales Circular No.U-63/2007 Annexure R-16 and Sales Circular No.U-03/2013 Annexure R-17 and contended that as per these Sales Circulars, the OPs have every right to recover the sundry charges from the consumer.

11.              From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that old meter connection of Lalit Kataria was removed PDCO, by the OPs and then OPs sent a memo/notice on 03.01.2020 for Rs.1,17,149/- to him Annexure R-5, but he did not pay the same and then, OPs charged/transferred the said amount in the account of complainant and sent a bill dated 15.09.2020 to the complainant, showing Rs.1,17,149/-, as sundry charges Annexure A-1.

12.              The said Lalit Kataria has also filed a civil suit, challenging the said notice/memo, before the learned Civil Court (Annexure R-9), in which, as per complainant, the proceedings of memo/notice dated 03.01.2020 has been stayed, and the said civil suit is pending adjudication. However, when OPs sent a memo/notice on dated 03.01.2020 to said Lalit Kataria (Annexure R-5), for recovery of Rs.1,17,149/- and the same was challenged by him, before the learned Civil Court, which is still pending adjudication, then how the OPs can charge/transfer the said amount of Rs.1,17,149/-, in the account of complainant and sent her a bill on dated 15.09.2020, showing Rs.1,17,049/- as sundry charges (Annexure A-1). How the OPs can proceed to recover the same amount of Rs.1,17,149/- twice firstly from Lalit Kataria and then from the complainant Renu Kataria, despite the fact that the matter regarding recovery from said Lalit Kataria is still pending before the Civil Court for adjudication and for this, the OPs have no explanation. If an amount of Rs.1,17,149/- is pending due qua the old meter connection of Lalit Kataria, then it was required for the OPs to recover the same from said Lalit Kataria as per rules, but not from the complainant. Moreover, the OPs cannot charge the electricity dues of a previous occupant from the present occupant. Our view is fully supported by the case law titled Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Hanuman Rice Mills and Others (supra), wherein, in Para No.8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that In 259241 this Court held, while reiterating the principle that the electricity dues did not constitute a charge on the premises, that where the applicable rules requires such payment, the same will be binding on the purchaser. This Court held:  “A transferee of the premises or a subsequent occupant of a premises with whom the supplier has no privity of contract cannot obviously be asked to pay the dues of his predecessor in title or possession, as the amount payable towards supply of electricity does not constitute a “charge” on the premises. A purchaser of a premises, cannot be foisted with the electricity dues of any previous occupant, merely because he happens to be the current owner of the premises. The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case squarely covers the facts and circumstances of the instant case, because, in the case in hand, the OPs had levied the pending dues/recovery of old user Lalit Kataria on the new user i.e. his mother Renu Kataria and as per above case law, a purchaser/subsequent occupant of premises cannot be foisted with the electricity dues of any previous occupant. The above act and conduct of OPs to send a bill showing Rs.1,17,049/- as sundry charges, to the complainant, amounts to gross deficiency in their services. As such, the OPs are not liable to recover/charge sundry charges of Rs.1,17,049/- from the complainant and the bill dated 15.09.2020 needs to be rectified to this extent only.

13.              Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down by the superior Fora in the aforesaid case and the facts and circumstances of the present case, we direct the OPs, not to the charge sundry charges of Rs.1,17,049/-, from the complainant and rectify the bill dated 15.09.2020 Annexure A-1, to this extent only. However, the OPs shall charge the electricity bills, as per actual consumption, from the complainant. Accordingly, the present complaint is accepted with no order as to costs.

14.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.           

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:30.11.2023.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.