Haryana

Ambala

CC/257/2013

SUMAN JAIN S/O SH KESHAV CHANDER JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN AMBALA CANTT - Opp.Party(s)

C.L KOHLI

15 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 257 of 2013

                                                          Date of Institution         : 01.10.2013

                                                                  Date of decision   : 15.06.2017

 

          Sh. Suman Jain S/o Keshav Chander Jain, R/o 5542, D.C. Road Ambala           Cantt.

……. Complainant.

 

1. Executive Engineer UHBVN, Ambala Cantt.
2. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Divn. No. II, UHBVN, Ambala Cantt.

 

 ….…. Respondents.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present:       Sh. C.L. Kohli, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Saravjeet Singh, counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant is having an electric connection vide account No. KW02-1446-N/old account No. YI-220/KW02-1446-N/old account No.YI-220 since from the last so many years and has been paying regular bill as per the consumption of electricity unit but he received a notice vide memo No.2986 dated 23.06.2011 with regard to the overhauling of account bearing No.YI-220/KW02-1446-N demanding a sum of Rs.49,445/- on the basis of the audit report of respondent department, in which has also it has also been mentioned that the meter was changed on account of the defective meter vide MCO No.82/76 dated 21.07.2007, at that time respondent have also charged the difference which was paid by the complainant and now again complainant cannot be penalized for the same offence. Further submitted that the electricity meter was changed on 21.07.2007 and more than 3 years have been elapsed and during this period inspection by the four parties in every year were made and none of the party pointed out the discrepancy of unit at any time. Further submitted that the meter reader even has not pointed out the discrepancy of unit at any time and the meter reader even has not pointed out with regard to the difference of unit consumption while taking the reading. Further submitted that the complainant has not been informed with regard to the audit inspection nor was it made in the presence of the complainant. Even no information was ever sent to complainant regarding the defective meter reading and consumption of energy unit and the mandatory Law and the procedural law is meant to advance the cause of justice, but the department has not taken into the consideration this fact and has sent the exaggerated bill by adding the arrear of amount of Rs.49,445/-, illegally without any basis which amount relates to the period from 12/2006 to 08/2007. The difference was never pointed out nor it was shown in the earlier bill i.e. for the last more than 3 years and it has been pointed out firstly in the bill as per the demand notice memo No.2986 dated 23.06.2011 and the complainant immediately served the OP NO.2 with a legal notice dated 04.10.2011, but the OP failed to give any reply rather they stood harassing the compliant by issuing a fictitious and exaggerated bill and the complainant was forced to deposit the part payment of the exaggerated bill under threat. Further submitted that the threat of the OPs remain continue and the complainant being a businessman was left with no other alternative except to deposit the exaggerated amount of the bill of electricity, which the complainant has not consumed such unit for which he is finalized and now the said amount comes to Rs.3,58,965/- in the bill of January 2013 and the complainant was forced to deposit the such amount from time to time in part payment and ultimately reduction in the electricity bill due to internal haphazard accounting & bungling in the July 2013 bill, the said amount comes to Rs.1,70,976/- dully settled to Rs.96269/- by the OP No.2 on his own and the complainant again forced to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- as part payment including the actual units consumed charges in the bill dated 12.07.2013 and rest of the amount was forced to be deposited on 23.08.2013 otherwise the electricity connection shall be disconnected, which balance of Rs.46269/- duly deposited on 27.08.2013 under writing of OP No.2. The Root cause is the exaggerated amount of Rs.49445/- plus surcharge charged at various bills. In this way, there is a clear deficiency on the part of OPs. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written statement submitting that the meter of the complainant had become defective which was charged vide MCO No.82/76, dated 21.07.2007 and the meter of the complainant remained defective from December 2006 to August 2007. During the period the meter of the complainant remained defective, the billing was done provisionally and the account of the complainant for the period during which the meter of the complainant remained defective was liable to be overhauled as per the provisions of Sales Circular No.6/2007. Further submitted that due to bonafide mistake on the part of the officials of UHBVN, the account of the complainant for the period December 2006 to August 2007 could not be overhauled and the mistake was found during audit and a sum of Rs.49,445 was proposed to be charged from the complainant by the audit party after overhauling the account of the complainant vide half margin No.77 dated 16.06.2011. In consonance with the half margin of the audit party, the OP no.2 vide notice bearing memo no.2986 dated 23.06.2011 was upon to deposit a sum of Rs.49,445/- with the OPs. Vide the same notice opportunity was also given to the complainant to come up with the objections if any, he has against the above charging of the amount. The complainant had filed the objections against the above said notice which were considered and rejected by the OP No.2 and the amount of Rs.49,445/- was ultimately debited in the account of the complainant. So, there is no negligency on the part of the OPs and OPs has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-9 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has also tendered affidavit as Annexure R-X alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 & R-2 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. The main grievance of the complainant at the time of the arguments, the OP has demanded the amount Rs.49,445/- through notice vide memo No.2986 dated 23.06.2011 on the basis of the audit report of respondent department in which it has also been mentioned that the meter was changed on account of defective meter vide MCO No.82/76 dated 21.07.2007. The counsel for the complainant has argued that the above said amount is times barred because OP has sent the above said notice after lapse of approximately 4 year and complainant is not liable to pay the same.

                   On the other hand, Ops has taken the stand that the meter of the complainant had become defective which was changed vide MCO No.82/76, dated 21.07.2007 and the meter of the complainant remained defective from December 2006 to August 2007, the billing was sent provisionally and the account of the complainant for the period during which the meter of the complainant remained defective was liable to be overhauled as per the provisions of sales circular No.6/2007. Due to bona-fide mistake on the part of the officials of UHBVN, the account of the complainant for the period December 2006 to August 2007 could not be overhauled and the mistake was found during audit and a sum of Rs.49,445 was proposed to be charged from the complainant by the audit party after overhauling the account of the complainant vide half margin No.77 dated 16.06.2011 and in consonance with the half margin of the audit party, the OP NO.2 vide notice bearing memo No.2986 dated 23.06.2011 was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.49,445/- with the OPs. Counsel for OPs has further argued that the demand of the OPs is not illegal and not time barred.

 5                The counsel for complainant drawn our attention towards the 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.”

                        

                   In view of the Section 56(2) of Electricity Act, no amount shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such amount became first due unless such amount has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied.  In the present case, the amount has been demanded for the period of December 2006 to August 2007 and OP has sent the notice for depositing the amount Rs.49,445/- first time on 23.06.2011 and demand has been raised vide bill dated 09.09.2011 (Annexure C-4).

                   In view of the above said discussion, we are of considered view that the demand notice bearing No.2986 dated 23.06.2011 (Annexure C-1) is hopelessly time barred and same is hereby quashed. Hence, the amount of Rs.49,445/- is not recoverable from the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed with no order to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced on :15.06.2017                                          Sd/-

                                                                              (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

    

                        Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

         (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                       Member