Haryana

Ambala

CC/56/2011

SURINDER KUMAR RATTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

D.S DANIPUR

05 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                                                                    Complaint Case No. :   56 of 2011

                                                          Date of Institution    :    11.02.2011

                                                         Date of Decision      :     05.10.2016

Surinder Kumar Ratta of N.N. H.S.E.B., Naraingarh, District Ambala.

                                        ……Complainant.

                                                                                           Versus

1.         SDO (Op) Sub Division, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran  Nigam Ltd. Naraingarh, District Ambala.

2.         XEN, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Naraingarh, District Ambala.

……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

BEFORE:       SH. D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:           Sh. D.S.Danipur, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Sarvejeet Singh, Adv. counsel for Ops.

ORDER:                   In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that complainant is consumer of the opposite parties  vide electricity account No. nn19/0758M-E and paying the energy bills regularly. The OP issued a bill No.1384 dated 25.09.2010 for a sum of Rs.42298/-adding therein a sum of Rs.41693/- as average adjustment.  As per complainant, there is nothing due or outstanding against the complainant regarding his electricity  bill or any other charges.  So, complainant approached Ops  but the linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant has alleged that he has apprehension that  if the bill is not paid, OP will disconnect the electricity connection of complainant for which they have no right. Therefore, the complainant  got served a registered /AD notice dated 25.10.2010 for correcting the bill but despite that Ops have not corrected the bill  nor replied the legal notice. Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.      Pursuant to notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed the written reply agitating preliminary objections that the complainant is not maintainable and suppression of material facts.  On merits, it has been admitted that the electricity connection bearing account No.NN19/0758-E exists in the name of complainant. Further it is stated that apart from the abovesaid connection, there was yet another electricity connection in the name of complainant bearing account No.19/613 which was disconnected by the Ops due to default in the payment of electricity bills and complainant himself had removed the meter installed against electricity connection bearing account no.19/613 vide report dated 12.08.2008 of the Nigam. However, in the month of August 2010 a sum of Rs.22085/- was due to be recovered from complainant against electricity connection no.19/613. So vide sundry no.14/11, a sum of Rs.22085/- was transferred to the existing account of the complainant being account No.NN19/0758-E as per rules of the Nigam, hence, the complainant is liable to pay the aforesaid amount. Further, there was an electricity connection in the name of the father of complainant  Rattan Lal bearing account no.19/490 who also defaulted  in the payment of electricity bills, so the electricity connection in his name was also disconnected vide PDCO dated 23.08.2008. In the month of August 2010, a sum of Rs.19608/- was due to be recovered in the existing account of the complainant. Hence, vide sundry no.14/11 a sum of Rs.41,693/- was transferred in the account of complainant. The complainant is liable to pay the aforesaid, transferred amount.  Hence, vide electricity bill dated 25.09.2010, a sum of Rs.41,693/- was demanded from the complainant in addition to current consumption charges. In the end, prayer for dismissal of complaint with cost has been made.

3.       In evidence, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit Annexure CX alongwith document as Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered  affidavit Annexure RW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-4  and closed the evidence.

4.            We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents on record.  The complainant has challenged the bill dated 25.09.2010 (Annexure C-3) whereby Ops have demanded a sum of Rs.43566/-. The Ops has admitted in their pleadings that they have transferred the amount of Rs.22085/- and Rs.19608/- i.e. a total sum of Rs.41693/- in the account of complainant which is illegal and without any basis and non-recoverable being time barred as per section 56(2) of Electricity Act.

                        On the other hand, counsel for Ops has argued that that the  complainant was having another electricity account and he failed to make the payment of the said connection, hence, the amount of Rs.41693/- was adjusted and demanded from complainant as per instructions of the Nigam.

5.                     Admittedly the Ops have added the amount of Rs.22085/- and Rs.19608/- i.e. a total sum of Rs.41693/- in the account of complainant for default in making payment by complainant for his previous electricity connection no.19/613 as well as for default in making payment by his father Rattan Lal who was having electricity account no.NN19/490.  The said amount of Rs.41993/- have firstly been demanded by Ops from complainant through bill dated 25.09.2010. The Op has admitted that  as per report dated 12.08.2008 of JE, complainant himself had removed the meter installed against electricity connection no.19/613 and on that date, a sum of Rs.22085/- was due  to him. Perusal of document Annexure R-1 reveals that PDCO (permanent disconnection order) against connection no. NN19/490  in the name of Rattan Lal was issued on 23.08.2008, meaning thereby that the sum of Rs.19068/- shown outstanding in his name  vide sundry no.14/11 was due prior to the period of 23.08.2008 and due to non-payment his connection was disconnected.

                        After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we have come to the conclusion that the demand of Rs.41693/- 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.41693/- vide sundry dated 08.07.2010 (Annexure R-3)  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 12.08.2008 & 23.08.2008 and the demand has been firstly raised vide bill dated 25.09.2010 which send to the complainant, hence, the amount  of Rs.41693/- 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 partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

i.Not to charge  amounting to Rs.41693/- as demanded vide bill dated 25.09.2010 (Annexure C-3).

ii.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.

 

ANNOUNCED ON:  05.010.2016                                                                           Sd/-         

                                                                                                                       (D.N. ARORA)

                                                     PRESIDENT                

 

                                                    Sd/-

                                   (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                              MEMBER