Haryana

Panchkula

CC/187/2016

parkash singh. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL AND ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

ABHINEET TANEJA.

22 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                         

Consumer Complaint No.	:	187 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	21.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	22.02.2017

 

Parkash Singh son of Sh. Ganesha resident of House No. 152, Budanpur, Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula

2.       The S.D.O, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Industrial Area, Phase I, District Panchkula.

                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Abhineet Taneja, Advocate for complainant.                                                  Mr.Y.P.Rana, Adv., for the Op.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that he has an electricity connection bearing account No.A21PC304679M which was installed at the external wall of the house. In the month of November, 2011, the complainant purchased new meter from Om Trading Company and gave it to the Ops for its installation. However, the Ops did not install the meter at the premises of the complainant for two long years. During those two years, the Ops used to issue the bill on the basis of average consumption as per the policy of the Ops. The complainant kept on visiting the office of the Ops but the Ops did not install the new meter. The complainant had written a letter dated 25.10.2013 and requested to install the meter. During the period of non-installation of meter, the Ops used to issue the bill on the basis of average consumption as per their policy. The average electricity consumption of the complainant was between 200-400 units. The complainant paid the electricity bill regularly to the Ops. Thereafter, the Ops demanded an amount of Rs.11,962/- through a letter dated 23.10.2013 from the complainant on account of assessment of electricity consumption for the defective meter w.e.f Jan, 2011 to May,201 and the complainant deposited the demanded amount in the year 2014 and thereafter the Ops installed the new meter in the year 2014. After installation of the new meter, the complainant never defaulted in the payment of the bill and used to pay the bill regularly to the Ops. Even after in the month of May 2016, the Ops issued the bill dated 03.05.2016 and imposed the exorbitant sundry charges of Rs.25,407.65/-. The complainant requested and asked the Ops that to inform him as to on what account the sundry charges have been imposed but to no avail. Thereafter, the Ops again issued a bill dated 05.07.2016 wherein the sundry charges were shown as Arrears. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant is the consumer of the Ops and the electricity connection was also installed in the premises of the complainant. It is submitted that in the year February, 2011, the electricity meter of the complainant was defective till December, 2013 and the department had sent the electricity bills on average basis. It is submitted that on 26.11.2013 vide MCO No.37/400, the electricity meter was removed and new meter was installed on 26.11.2013. It is submitted that as per policy of the Nigam, the account of the complainant was overhauled for the period from August, 2012 to December, 2013 and the Ops had issued the electricity bill for 1912 units. It is submitted that after installation of new meter on 26.11.2013, the new meter produce 5652 units from December, 2013 to December, 2014. It is submitted that after taking the consumption of new meter for one year, the Nigam had issued the electricity bill to the complainant for the period from August, 2012 to December, 2013 as sundry charges vide bill of remaining units i.e. 3740 untis out of the total 5652 units. It is submitted that new meter was supplied by the complainant to the officials of Ops in November, 2013 and new meter was installed in the premises of the complainant on 26.11.2013.It is denied that the average electricity consumption of the complainant was between 200-400 units. It is submitted that as per account statement of the new meter, the complainant consumed approximately 716, 913, 745 each for two months. It is submitted that the ops had issued the bill of Rs.25,407.65 to the complainant as per the account of the Ops but the complainant had not deposited the said amount. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. The complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the Ops has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence.
4. Heard. The complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the Op has reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Undisputedly, the complainant is having an electricity connection bearing No.A21PC304679M. The case of the complainant is that the Ops on 23.10.2013 demanded an amount of Rs.11,962/- from the complainant on account of assessment of electricity consumption for defective meter w.e.f. January, 2011 to May, 2011 and the same was deposited by the complainant in the year 2014. The new meter was installed in the year 2014. Thereafter, the complainant paid bill regularly. In the month of May, 2016, the Ops issued the bill dated 03.05.2016 and imposed the sundry charges of Rs.24,407.65. The complainant requested the Ops to correct the bill but the Ops again issued bill dated 05.07.2016 wherein the sundry charges were shown as arrear.
6. On the other hand, the Ops have submitted that the electricity meter of the complainant remained defective from February, 2011 to December, 2013 and the bills were sent on average basis. The new meter was installed on 26.11.2013. The account of the complainant was overhauled for the period from August, 2012 to December, 2013 and bill for the abovesaid period was issued as sundry charges vide bill dated 03.05.2016. The Ops further submitted that bill of Rs.25,407.65 was issued alongwith sundry charges on account of overhauling the amount of complainant in May, 2016.
7. On perusal of the account statement (Annexure R-1), the meter of the complainant remained defective from January, 2011 to 26.11.2013, the date of which the new meter was installed. However, the Ops charged Rs.11,962/- vide their letter dated 23.10.2013 (Annexure R-4) and the complainant deposited the same. The Ops issued the bill on 04.03.2016 for the period from 20.12.2015 to 20.02.2016 for an amount of Rs.2,893/- (Annexure C-7). No arrear has been shown in the abovesaid bill. The Ops issued the bill on 03.05.2016 for the period from 20.02.2016 to 20.04.2016 (Annexure C-8) and first time the Ops have shown the sundry charges/allowances for an amount of Rs.25,407.65. The bill issued on 05.07.2016 by the Ops for the period from 20.04.2016 to 20.06.2016 for an amount of Rs.33,141/- showing arrear of Rs.28, 568.13 (Annexure C-9) but no detail has been placed on record by the Ops. As per the affidavit (Annexure R-A) filed by the Ops has submitted that the bill issued in May, 2016 and sundry charges were charged for the period from August, 2012 to December, 2013.
8. Now the question before us is as to whether the Ops can charge the amount of Rs.25,407.65 from the complainant for the period from August, 2012 to December, 2013 as sundry charges vide bill dated 03.05.2016 after the lapse of about 2 years and 5 months whereas no such arrear has been shown in the previous bill issued by the Ops.
9. As per Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, no amount due from the consumer can be recovered after a period of two years from the date the amount became due, unless and until the due amount has been shown payable continuously in the ledger. It is not the case of the Op before us.
10. The Hon’ble National Commission in case Bombay Electricity Supply & Transport Undertaking Vs. Pophate Nursing Home & another, 1986-95 Consumer 497 (NS) has held that recovery of arrears for more than two years would be barred by limitation.
11. The Hon’ble SCDRC, Haryana in case titled as DHBVN vs. Khushi Ram, FA No.2370 decided on 05.06.2012, where Electricity Board demanded Rs.6958/- in the year 2001 from the complainant/consumer towards Sundry Charges on account of outstanding of his another connection disconnected in the year 1994 i.e. after a period of more than 7 years, has held that recovery of arrears for more than two years would be barred by limitation.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and ratio of law decided by higher courts, we are of the considered view that OPs wrongly demanded the defaulting amount after gap of 2 years from the complainant vide bills (Annexure C-7 & C-8) dated 04.03.2016 and 03.05.2016. After going through the above discussion, we are of the opinion that this act and conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
13. For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint is hereby allowed and the OPs are hereby directed:-
    1. Not to demand Rs.25,407.65/- from the complainant on account of sundry charges shown in the bill issued on 03.05.2016 and the amount deposited by the complainant be adjusted in the future bill of the complainant.

 

2. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

 

3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

 

Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

22.02.2017            ANITA KAPOOR                  DHARAM PAL

                              MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          

                                            

                                                DHARAM PAL                                                                                         PRESIDENT