BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.273/16.
Date of instt.: 06.09.2016.
Date of Decision: 06.06.2017.
Sant Lal, S/o Sh. Chiman Lal, r/o Gali No.7, Amargarh Gamri, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
UHBVN, through SDO Op. Divn.X-42, City Kaithal II, Karnal Road, near Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Kabir Dhall, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Karan Gaur, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is having electricity connection No.K42KA165691 and has been paying the bills regularly. It is alleged that the Op issued the bill dt. 12.08.2016 showing outstanding amount of Rs.12,198/-. The said bill is wrong and illegal. This way, the Op is deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that in the month of December, 2014, the bill amounting to Rs.706/- was issued by the Op which was deposited by the complainant on 30.12.2014. Thereafter on 31.12.2014, the premises of complainant was inspected by the officials of Op and the complainant was found indulged in theft of electricity as envisaged u/s 135 of Electricity Act and accordingly, an amount of Rs.16,897/- as penalty was levied in the account of complainant. Thereafter, the complainant filed civil suit bearing No.98 of 2014 titled as “Sant Lal Vs. UHBVN” and in compliance with the directions of civil court, the complainant deposited the 50% of penalty amount i.e. Rs.8449/- with the Op. As per the rules & regulations of Nigam, the said penalty amount of Rs.16,897/- was to be debited into his amount while issuing next bill in the month of February, 2015 (as amount of Rs.8449/- deposited by the consumer was accepted by the Ops subject to the outcome of Civil Suit No.98 of 2014) but due to clerical mistake of HCL System, the said amount was wrongly mentioned as Rs.17,518/- instead of Rs.16,897/-. Not only this, the amount of Rs.19,155/- was further wrongly credited into the account of complainant despite the fact that the said amount was never deposited by the complainant rather the same was got deposited by other consumer namely Sat Narayan having electricity connection No.KA-15/1957. Due to the above-said mistake, the bill of electricity amounting to Rs.-7828 was issued to the complainant in the month of February, 2015 despite the fact that the said bill was to be issued amounting to Rs.10,706/- i.e. Rs.8448/- on account of balance penalty amount & Rs.2258/- on account of current cycle charge. Thereafter, the bills of electricity against the connection in dispute was continued to be issued till the month of June, 2016 which was got deposited by the complainant. It is further stated that on 11.04.2016, the complainant settled the dispute in civil suit No.98 of 2014 out of the court with the Op and balance penalty amount of Rs.8448/- was waived off. It is further stated that the officials of Op observed the above-said mistake and vide sundry No.71 dt. 21.06.2016 rectified the same. It is worth mentioning here that since February, 2014 till August, 2016, the total amount of Rs.19,156/- was to be paid by the complainant as per consumption of electricity during aforesaid period out of which R.2429/- on 13.12.2015, Rs.1386/- on 29.02.2016, Rs.1343/- on 29.04.2016 & Rs.1807/- on 30.06.2016 was got deposited by the complainant and as such amount of Rs.12,191/- i.e. Rs.19,156/- minus Rs.6965/.-=Rs.12,191/- was pending as arrears which was rightly claimed by the Op. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and document Annexure-CA and closed evidence on 03.02.2017. On the other hand, the Op tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed evidence on 24.03.2017.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant is having electricity connection No.K42KA165691 and has been paying the bills regularly. He further argued that the Op issued the bill dt. 12.08.2016 showing outstanding amount of Rs.12,198/-. The said bill is wrong and illegal. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op argued that on 31.12.2014, the premises of complainant was inspected by the officials of Op and the complainant was found indulged in theft of electricity as envisaged u/s 135 of Electricity Act and accordingly, an amount of Rs.16,897/- as penalty was levied in the account of complainant. He further argued that the complainant filed civil suit bearing No.98 of 2014 titled as “Sant Lal Vs. UHBVN” and in compliance with the directions of civil court, the complainant deposited the 50% of penalty amount i.e. Rs.8449/- with the Op. He further argued that as per the rules & regulations of Nigam, the said penalty amount of Rs.16,897/- was to be debited into his amount while issuing next bill in the month of February, 2015 (as amount of Rs.8449/- deposited by the consumer was accepted by the Ops subject to the outcome of Civil Suit No.98 of 2014) but due to clerical mistake of HCL System, the said amount was wrongly mentioned as Rs.17,518/- instead of Rs.16,897/-. He further argued that the amount of Rs.19,155/- was further wrongly credited into the account of complainant despite the fact that the said amount was never deposited by the complainant rather the same was got deposited by other consumer namely Sat Narayan having electricity connection No.KA-15/1957. He further argued that due to the above-said mistake, the bill of electricity of Rs.-7828/- (i.e. in minus) was issued to the complainant in the month of February, 2015 despite the fact that the said bill was to be issued amounting to Rs.10,706/- i.e. Rs.8448/- on account of balance penalty amount & Rs.2258/- on account of current cycle charge. He further argued that on 11.04.2016, the complainant settled the dispute in civil suit No.98 of 2014 out of the court with the Op and balance penalty amount of Rs.8448/- was waived off. He further argued that the officials of Op observed the above-said mistake and vide sundry No.71 dt. 21.06.2016 rectified the same. He further argued that since February, 2014 till August, 2016, the total amount of Rs.19,156/- was to be paid by the complainant as per consumption of electricity during aforesaid period and out of which, the complainant has deposited Rs.2429/- on 13.12.2015, Rs.1386/- on 29.02.2016, Rs.1343/- on 29.04.2016 & Rs.1807/- on 30.06.2016 i.e. total amounting to Rs.6965/- and as such amount of Rs.12,191/- (i.e. Rs.19,156/- minus Rs.6965/.-=Rs.12,191/-) is pending as arrears which has rightly been claimed by the Op, as is clear from the document Ex.R5.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the complainant is having electricity connection No.K42KA165691. Ld. Counsel for the complainant stated at bar that the complainant has no receipts regarding the deposit of electricity bills for the period from February, 2015 to October, 2015. It means that the complainant has not deposited any amount during this period. The complainant has also failed to produce any document on the file that he has deposited the amount of Rs.19,155/-. So, the contention of Op that an amount of Rs.19,155/- has been wrongly credited into the account of the complainant, whereas the same was got deposited by other consumer namely Sat Narayan having electricity connection No.KA-15/1957 (Old account No.KA-12/1957) has force. Due to the mistake, the electricity bills of the complainant from February, 2015 to October, 2015 were issued in minus, as is clear from account statement, Ex.R5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant agreed at the bar with the calculation shown in the account statement, Ex.R5. But he made a request that the same has been happened due to the mistake of Op, so, the complainant may be allowed to deposit the said amount without any surcharge. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the amount of Rs.19,155/- has been credited due to the mistake of Op and the complainant cannot be burdened with surcharge penalty without any fault on his part. Therefore, the complainant is liable to pay the electricity charges from February, 2015 to August, 2016 on the consumption basis. From February, 2015 to August, 2016 the amount of bill comes to Rs.19,156/- on consumption basis. Out of this amount, as admitted by the Ops, the complainant has deposited Rs.6965/- from December, 2015 to June, 2016. Hence, the complainant is liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.12,191/- (i.e. Rs.19,156/- minus Rs.6965/-=Rs.12,191/-).
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we dispose off the complaint and direct the Op not to claim surcharge on the amount of Rs.12,191/-, subject to the condition that the complainant will deposit this amount within 30 days. However, it is made clear that vide order dt. 06.09.2016, the injunction was granted to the complainant, subject to the condition that he shall deposit the 40% of the disputed amount of Rs.12,562/- and if the complainant has deposited the same, the same shall be deducted from the amount of bill of Rs.12,191/-. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.06.06.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
