Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 164.
Instituted on : 2.4.2019.
Decided on : 16.12.2019.
Om Pati wife of Shri Ved Pal, resident of Vishal Nagar, Rohtak. ………..Complainant.
Vs.
U.H.B.V.N.L. Ltd., City Divisional, Sub Division No.3, Rohtak, through SDO.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Pardeep Ahlawat, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had taken the electric connection bearing account no.3192960000 for the domestic purpose and she had paid the domestic bill regularly to the opposite party without any delay. On 25.6.2015, some officials of the opposite party visited the house of complainant and got checked the electric meter and found the same running in ‘OK’ condition and seals were also found intact. The Officials of the Opposite party visited the house of the complainant and after checking the meter with their apparatus, requested to allow to take meter alongwith them as the meter installed has having some issued with display and assured that the meter with replaced display will be installed at the cost of the opposite party, as per the policy of the Govt. of Haryana and installed another meter. The complainant was called by opposite party and asked to sign some papers as a formality for the replacement of the display of meter. The complainant has received bill dated 2-1-2019, wherein the opposite party is demanding Rs.38,718/- which includes arrears amount of Rs.38,183/-. The complainant being surprised on getting the huge bill and approached the office of the respondent, requested to correct the bill as per the consumption but official of the opposite party flatly refused. That the act of opposite party is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such, it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to not to demand the amount of Rs.38,183/- as the same are illegal, against the principles of natural justice and not to disconnect the meter in question and also to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony etc. and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply submitted that the premise of the complainant was visited by the checking party and electricity meter was found installed inside a room. The electricity meter was checked and found that consumer is indulging in disturbing the display unit of meter in order to make it defective, so that the actual consumption may not be recorded as the meter display was found defective at the time of checking. It is also submitted that the connection was obtained for domestic purpose but the electricity was being used for commercial purpose of running of guest house/café. The premises of the complainant was checked in the presence of one Lalit Hooda son of Smt. Ompati. The meter was checked and removed from the spot and packed into the card box. The complainant and checking party signed upon the checking report as well as card box and the meter was referred to M&T Lab, Rohtak for checking. A videography of the spot was also done and electricity supply was restored and a new meter was installed in the premises of the complainant. A joint checking report was prepared in the M&T Lab, Rohtak in the presence of Lalit Hooda on dated 26.6.2015. It is further submitted that during the checking accuracy of the meter could not be checked as the display of the meter was found in off position. While the terminal block was found intact. It seems that the display of the meter was made intentionally off by using some external devise without disturbing the seals. It is further submitted that the M&T lab advised that in any dispute the meter may be referred to the firm to know final reading and cause of display failure. It is further submitted that the complainant was using the electricity energy for commercial purpose instead of domestic and after considering the report, the internal audit department prepared a half margin report and an amount of Rs.38183.46 has been added in the electricity bill of the consumer. She was advised to deposit the same but instead of depositing the amount of electricity bill the complainant has filed the present complaint on false and concocted story. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence on dated 27.6.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and has closed his evidence on dated 1.10.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After perusal of the documents placed on record by the complainant as well as respondent, we came into conclusion that a half margin report was prepared by the respondent official as Ex.C1. After considering the fact that the electricity energy was used by the complainant for commercial purpose instead of domestic, so an amount of Rs.38182/- has been charged through half margin report dated 8.11.2018.
6. We have perused document Ex.C1, the bill for the period 29.8.2015 to 29.10.2015 issued on 9.11.2015 and in this document the tariff category of the electricity supply of the complainant has been mentioned as DS (domestic supply), and meaning thereby on dated 29.10.2015, the complainant was using the electricity energy for domestic purpose.
7. We have also perused document Ex.C2, which was also placed on record by the complainant, an electricity bill for the period 20.10.2016 to 25.12.2016, and in this document also the tariff category is mentioned as DS(domestic supply). Meaning thereby from 29.10.2015 to 25.12.2016 as per the department i.e. respondent, the complainant was using electricity energy for domestic purpose. Moreover, the respondent in their evidence placed on record Ex.R2, an electricity bill of the complainant premises for the period 30.6.2019 to 26.8.2019 and in this document also the tariff category of the complainant premises as DS(domestic category). Meaning thereby the complainant have not issued any electricity bill to the complainant NDS category till date i.e. from 29.8.2015 to till today.
8. On the other hand, the respondent officials are prepared a half margin report and charged an amount of Rs.38182/- from the complainant on account of using of electricity energy as commercial. Moreover, the alleged amount was for the period 2014-2015 and was imposed in the bill dated 2.1.2019 i.e. after 3 years. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the order dated 06.11.2015 titled as UHBVN Vs. Ashok Kumar whereby Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula has held that: “In view of the provision contained in Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003, No sum could be recovered from the consumer after the period of two years from the date when it became due”, as per 2013(4) 247 titled as Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Rajinder Kumar whereby Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that: “Surcharge due, claimed in the year 2000 which pertained to the period 21.10.1992 to 10.12.1994-Held, claim for outstanding dues barred by the law of limitation”, as per 2009(1)CLT526 titled Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Rajji Bai whereby Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula has held that; “ Electricity bill-Sundry charges- demand made by OPs on the basis of objection raised by 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 District Forum set aside the demand upheld”,
9. In view of the aforesaid law which are also fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the amount is illegally imposed upon the complainant after two years. Hence the same is barred by law of limitation and opposite party is not entitled to recover the alleged amount from the complainant.
10. Accordingly we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party not to charge an amount of Rs.38,182/- from the complainant. Opposite party shall also pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied maximum within one month from the date of decision. It is further directed that the alleged amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) shall be adjusted in future bills of the complainant. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
11. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
16.12.2019
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
