Haryana

Kaithal

82/21

Subhash Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Mukesh Sharma

01 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.82/2021.

                                                     Date of institution: 24.03.2021.

                                                     Date of decision:01.09.2023.

Subhash Sharma, Advocate, aged 71 years, S/o Sh. Sardari Lal Sharma, r/o # 231/10, Guru Teg Bahadur Colony, Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Sub Divisional Officer, Operation, Sub Division No.2, UHBVN, Kaithal, O/o Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal.
2. Executive Engineer, Operation, Division UHBVN, Kaithal, O/o Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal.
3. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its CMD O/o Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Subhash-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 the electricity connection bearing No.X42KA210155 with sanctioned load of 4.85 K.W. in his name installed at his residence.  The complainant has been paying the bills to the OPs regularly.  The case of complainant is that in the month of March, 2021 the OPs have issued the bill amounting to Rs.7426/- including Rs.1437/- as current cycle charges for the period w.e.f. 09.01.2021 to 03.03.2021 and Rs.5989/- as sundry charges.  The complainant has challenged the said sundry charges of Rs.5989/-.  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 contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction.  The true facts are that the electricity connection in question is in the name of complainant.  The Audit Party of the Nigam checked and audited the record for the period of April, 2016 to March, 2017 and found that the electricity meter of complainant remained defective w.e.f. 10/2015 to 12/2016 (7 billing) and billing in that period was issued on average basis.  The electric meter of consumer was replaced with the new one on 12/2016.  So, the account of complainant was overhauled as per consumption of new meter from 12/2016 to 08/2017.  Hence, a sum of Rs.11,718/- was chargeable from the complainant as per Half Margin No.168 dt. 22.11.2017.  The amount of Rs.5729/- was already charged from the complainant and due to mistake and inadvertently, remaining amount of Rs.5989/- was wrongly waived off by the concerned official of the Nigam as per Sales Circular No.U-15/2018.  The Audit Party of the Nigam again checked and audited the account of complainant and found that a sum of Rs.5989/- was wrongly waived off by Sub Division.  Hence, on the basis of audit report, the above-said amount of Rs.58989/- has been charged into the electricity account of complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C15 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

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

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is having the electricity connection bearing No.X42KA210155 with sanctioned load of 4.85 K.W. in his name installed at his residence.  The complainant has been paying the bills to the OPs regularly.  It is further argued that in the month of March, 2021 the OPs have issued the bill amounting to Rs.7426/- including Rs.1437/- as current cycle charges for the period w.e.f. 09.01.2021 to 03.03.2021 and Rs.5989/- as sundry charges.  The complainant has challenged the said sundry charges of Rs.5989/-.  It is further argued that the OPs have enhanced the sanctioned load from 4.85 K.W. to 7.60 K.W.  There is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. D.A.V. Centenary Sr. Sec. School 2019(3) CLT 553 decided by Hon’ble National Commission.

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that Audit Party of the Nigam checked and audited the record for the period of April, 2016 to March, 2017 and found that the electricity meter of complainant remained defective w.e.f. 10/2015 to 12/2016 (7 billing) and billing in that period was issued on average basis.  The electric meter of consumer was replaced with the new one on 12/2016.  So, the account of complainant was overhauled as per consumption of new meter from 12/2016 to 08/2017.  Hence, a sum of Rs.11,718/- was chargeable from the complainant as per Half Margin No.168 dt. 22.11.2017.  It is further argued that the amount of Rs.5729/- was already charged from the complainant and due to mistake and inadvertently, remaining amount of Rs.5989/- was wrongly waived off by the concerned official of the Nigam as per Sales Circular No.U-15/2018.  It is further argued that the Audit Party of the Nigam again checked and audited the account of complainant and found that a sum of Rs.5989/- was wrongly waived off by Sub Division.  Hence, on the basis of audit report, the above-said amount of Rs.5989/- has been charged into the electricity account of complainant.

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  The main grievance of the complainant relates to the sundry charges of Rs.5989/- which has been added in the bill amounting to Rs.7426/- for the period 09.01.2021 to 03.03.2021.  It is clear from the report of Audit Party of the Nigam vide Half Margin No.58 dt. 27.12.2019 for the period from April, 2018 to March, 2019 as per Annexure-C5/Annexure-R2 that the sum of Rs.5989/- was waived off by Sub Division and the said amount of Rs.5989/- was again added in the bill dt. 15.03.2021 as per Annexure-C11.  In this regard, we can rely upon the authority titled as P.S.E.B. Vs. D.A.V. Centenary Sr. Sec. School (supra), wherein it has been mentioned that “Electricity dues-Limitation to recover-Held-That the electricity dues for the period prior to two years from the date of revised bill cannot be asked to be paid by the consumer-Revision petition dismissed.”  The said authority is fully applicable to the facts of instant case.  So, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

10.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the OPs to waive off the sundry charges of Rs.5989/- from the account of complainant within 45 days from today.  The OPs are further directed to adjust the amount, if any deposited by the complainant, vide order dt. 07.04.2021 passed by this Commission.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.        

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OPs 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 both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:01.09.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.