Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 56.
Instituted on : 4.2.2019.
Decided on : 02.03.2022.
Rajwanti , aged 48 years wife of Sh. Satyawan, R/o 1789/34 near Dhaga Mill, Vijay Nagar, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Panchkula through its Managing Director.
- Executive Engineer, City Operation Division, UHBVN, Rohtak.
- SDO(Op.) Sub Division No.2, UHBVN, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. KL Mehta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sunil Kumar LDC, UHBVN, Divn. No.2 on behalf of
opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that the complainant had taken electricity connection bearing A/c No.5331760000 which is installed at her residential premises for domestic purpose. The complainant has been paying the electricity bills regularly. She never defaulted for making the payment of any bill but the opposite parties had issued a bill dated 09.11.2018 of Rs.29,133/- included as sundry charges allowance, which is illegal. In this regard, she went to the office of opposite parties and enquired the matter and came to know that the respondents have illegally treated her electricity connection as non domestic whereas the said connection is installed in her residential premises. The respondents calculated the difference regarding charge of category from DS to NDS as Rs.5590/- plus Rs.21109/- whereas if the said connection be treated as NDS, the difference payable by complainant comes to Rs.5590/- only but the respondents have wrongly added both the amounts and illegally claimed amount of Rs.26699/- from the complainant. The complainant requested the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal demand of sundry charges but the opposite parties threatened to disconnect the electricity connection in case of non-payment of electricity charges. As such she deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 5.12.2018 under protest but the respondents still threatened the complainant to pay the remaining amount and finally they refused to pay any heed to the request of complainant. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed not to claim the amount of Rs.26,699/- as sundry charges and not to disconnect the electricity connection as well as to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited by the complainant and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement submitting therein that the premises was checked by the checking team of Vigilance UHBVNL Rohtak on dated 13.6.2018 and they have reported on LL1No.4/3871(but the same is 3671/4, as is proved from the sundry mentioned at page no.2 of Ex.R1) that the supply was being used by the consumer in NDS Category in a small shop running within the house namely, Shiv Baba Kiryana Store. So Rs.26699/- was charged by the Nigam as the penalty, which is liable to pay by the consumer. It is prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW3 and closed his evidence on dated 3.12.2019. On the other hand Shri Sunil, LDC UHBVNL for opposite parties made a statement that the reply already filed in this case be read as affidavit in evidence and tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and has closed his evidence on dated 6.3.2020.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case, as per the complainant he has a domestic electricity connection and the department has issued a wrong bill after considering the connection under NDS category. The respondent officials have wrongly calculated the penalty amount. In fact as per sale circular No.U-15 of 2014, under sub section 4 & 7 of Section 8.6 General, it is submitted that: 4) “In the case of change in tariff category either due to tariff order of the Commission or any other order, Regulation or statutory provision, it shall be incumbent upon the licensee to identify such cases and give them opportunity by servicing an advance notice to get their tariff category changed accordingly and till then no case of unauthorized use of electricity shall be booked in such cases” and as per section 7) “In the cases where the consumer has not concealed the category of usage of supply while applying for the connection but the load was sanctioned under a wrong category by the sanctioning authority; only the difference of the tariff from the date of connection shall be charged and no case of unauthorized use of supply or theft of electricity shall be made. The future billing, however shall be made on the applicable category”.
7. On the other hand, respondents have submitted that the electricity connection of the complainant was checked by the Vigilence Unit, Rohtak and it was found that the category of the connection was DS and sanctioned load was 2.0KW but the complainant was using the same as NDS and also used the MDI more than sanctioned load. He was using the electric energy upto 0.271KW for NDS purpose. In fact in the premises the complainant has a Kiryana Shop namely Shiv Baba Kiryana Store. To prove this fact, respondent officials have placed on record a checking report dated 13.06.2018 as Ex.R1, copy of sundry on the 2nd page of Ex.R1 and also placed on record a CD Ex.R2. A bare perusal of the CD itself shows that the complainant is running a kiryana shop in his house and used the electricity energy for NDS purpose. To support their contention, the respondents have relied upon the sale circular No.U-60/2007 and Sale Circular No.02/2020. As per sales Circular No. U-60/2007, under the head IV) Assessment for unauthorized use of electricity in sub section b) it is submitted that: “For the assessment of quantity in units for the acts of unauthorized use of electricity as defined under definition of un-authorized use of electricity, whole consumption recorded during the period of assessment under clause(IV) (a) shall be taken. The units so assessed shall be charged at a rate equal to two times of the higher tariff applicable for the relevant category of consumers. The amount already billed in the consumer account for the period of assessment shall be deducted for calculating the assessed amount”. And as per Sales Circular No.U-02/2020, Assessment of electricity charges in the case of unauthorized use of electricity u/s 126 of the Act, it is submitted that: “The consumer will, on the basis of consumption of electricity computed as above, be liable to pay electricity charges at a rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for the relevant category in which the service should have been classified”. We have also perused the sundry annexed with the checking report Ex.R1. In view of the alleged sales circulars and documents placed on record it is observed that opposite party has rightly charged the amount from the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. 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:
02.03.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………….
Tripti Pannu, Member.
…………………………….
Shyam Lal, Member.
