Haryana

StateCommission

A/133/2016

ASHOK DUA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

NEERAJ GUPTA

02 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                       

First Appeal No  :      721A of 2015

And First Appeal No. 133 of 2016         

Date of Institution:      02.09.2015

                                    10.02.2016 

Date of Decision :       02.11.2016

 

 

First Appeal No.721A of 2015

 

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

2.      S.D.O, Sub Urban, Sub Division No.1, UHBVN, Kaithal.

3.      Executive Engineer, UHBVN, Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal.

                                                Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Ashok Dua son of Sh. Ghanshyam Dass, c/o Dua Poultry Farm, Dhand Road, Kaithal.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

First Appeal No.133 of 2016

 

Ashok Dua son of Sh. Ghanshyam Dass, c/o Dua Poultry Farm, Dhand Road, Kaithal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

 

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

2.      S.D.O, Sub Urban, Sub Division No.1, UHBVN, Kaithal.

3.      Executive Engineer, UHBVN, Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal.

                                                Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for UHBVNL and others

                             Shri Neeraj Gupta, Advocate for Ashok Dua-

                             complainant.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned appeals bearing No.721A of 2015 and 133 of 2016 respectively filed by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others-opposite parties (for short, ‘UHBVNL’) and Ashok Dua-complainant because they have arisen out of common order dated July 30^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘District Forum’) in complaint No.66 of 2014. 

2.      The complainant was running a poultry farm in the name and style of Dua Poultry Farm, Dhand Road, Kaithal.  He got the load extended from 18 KW to 25 KW on August 30^th, 2005.  He was regularly paying the electricity bills.  On February 11^th, 2014 the premises was checked by the Enforcement Wing of UHBVNL and found the running load of 22 KW.  In the ledger of UHBVNL, the load was shown 20 KW although the load was extended by the complainant from 18 KW to 25 KW on August 30^th, 2005.  In view of that, UHBVNL issued a letter dated March 13^th, 2014 whereby complainant was asked to deposit Rs.73,625/-  on account of fixed charges from October 01^st, 2010 to January 31^st, 2014.  The said letter was challenged by the complainant before the District Forum by filing complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      By impugned order, District Forum held that UHBVNL was not entitled to recover the amount due for more than two years and could recover the amount only for two years, that is, from March 13^th, 2012 to 2014. 

4.      Admittedly, the recovery sought from the complainant was for the period from October 01^st, 2010 to January 31^st, 2014. The demand was raised vide letter dated March 13^th, 2014.  UHBVNL could not recover the amount for the period October 01^st, 2010 to March, 2012 in view of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which reads as under:-

“(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 arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.”

5.      A reading of the aforesaid provision shows that no sum could be recovered from the consumer after the period of two years from the date when it became first due.

6.      In view of the above, both the appeals are dismissed.

7.      Certified copy of this order be placed on the file of Appeal No.133 of 2016.

 

 

Announced: 02.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK