Haryana

Panchkula

CC/315/2016

JITENDER MOHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

21 Jul 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                         

Consumer Complaint No.	:	315 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	25.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	21.07.2017

 

 

Jitender Mohan S/o Sh.Bhoop Singh, House No.1006, Gali No.11, Village Haripur, Sector-4, Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division A27, Sub Urban, Panchkula.

                                                                    ….Opposite Parties

 

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

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

                             Mr.Y.P.Rana, Adv., for the Ops.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Op with the averments that he has an electricity connection bearing No.7593550000 for domestic purposes for the last 15 years and was paying the electricity charges/bills regularly. In the year, 2013, officials of OP told that electricity meter installed at the premises of the complainant was not working properly. The complainant had got changed the defective electricity meter from the OP immediately after the advice of the officials of Op. No arrear of electricity charges was pending on the complainant even after replacement of electricity meter. Even though the complainant received a bill for the month of November, 2016 bearing bill NO.759351160262 for an amount of Rs.24,591/- wherein a sum of Rs.15,804/- has been shown as Sundry Charges. On inquiry from the office of Op, the complainant came to know that the bill was issued to the complainant on the basis of audit report and a sum of Rs.15,804/- added in the bill as average charges of the old electricity meter which was changed in the year 2013. Prior to the bill of November, 2016, neither any recovery was shown nor was any notice in this regard issued by the Op. As per section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Op could not charge any amount. The complainant brought the abovesaid fact in the notice of Op but no relief was given rather the complainant was threatened for disconnection of electricity. In order to avoid the disconnection, the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,323/- vide cheque No.150995 dated 19.11.2016 in which he paid an amount of Rs.732/- extra beyond the billed amount. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Op appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking preliminary objection and submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has not come with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Court. On merit, it is submitted that meter was not properly functioning. In the month of February, 2013, bill was issued to the complainant on MMC basis and a bill of 250 units was being sent to the complainant in April, 2013. It is submitted that in June and August, bill was issued to the complainant on minimum basis. In October, bill was issued on unit basis and the complainant had deposited the amount for all bills. It is submitted that the meter of the complainant was changed by the OP. It is submitted that the Op had issued the bill in November, 2016 for Rs.24,591/-. After installing the new meter, the OP sent five bills to the complainant taking base as per the reading of the new meter. The cumulative reading for the 5 bills stood at 3370 units of which 490 units for the defective period was deducted and the remaining units stood at 2880 units. The amount for 2880 units stood at Rs.16,283.70 out of which have been shown by the Op as sundry charges. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.15,804/- had been decided as per the audit report made on 29.10.2015 and amount of Rs.15,804/- related from the period of February, 2013 to October, 2013. It is submitted that the amount of sundry charges of Rs.15,804/- was issued in the bill of November, 2016 as per audit report. It is submitted that the Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not applicable over the present complaint. It is submitted that the audit was done on 29.10.2015 and thus the amount determined does not come within the ambit of 2 years period. It is submitted that the Op has power to recover the amount as per audit report. It is submitted that the complainant deposited the full amount as per his own free will. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP 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-4 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 document Annexure R-1 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. 7593550000. The case of the complainant is that in the month of November, 2016, the Op issued a bill (Annexure C-1) to the complainant for an amount of Rs.24,591/- in which a sum of Rs.15,804/- had been shown as Sundry charges. It is an admitted fact that the amount of Rs.15,804/- relates to the period from February, 2013 to October, 2013 which has been charged in November, 2016 on the basis of audit report dated 29.10.2015, after lapse of more than 2 years. The complainant has paid the amount of Rs.25,323/- vide cheque No.150995 dated 19.11.2016 (Annexure C-2).
6. Now the question before us is as to whether the OP can charge any amount from the complainant on the basis of assessment done by their audit party.
7. From the perusal of the records, it reveals that the demand of Rs.15,804/- raised by the OP vide bill for the month of November, 2016 is as Sundry Charges, after more than 2 years.
8. 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. It is not the case of the Op before us.
9. 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.
10. The Hon’ble SCDRC, Haryana in case titled as UHBVNL and ors. vs. Ashok Dua, FA No.721A of 2015 and Ashok Dua vs. UHBVNL and ors., FA No.133 of 2016 decided on 02.11.2016, has held that:-

“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.”

11. 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 OP wrongly demanded the defaulting amount after gap of 2 years from the complainant vide bill for the month of November, 2016 (Annexure C-1). 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 its part.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint is hereby allowed and the OP is hereby directed:-
    1. To treat the bill for the month of November, 2016 as set aside and cancelled being time barred.

 

2. To refund the amount of Rs.15,804/- plus Rs.732/- paid extra deposited by the complainant or be adjusted in the future bill of the complainant.

 

3. In particular circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

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

21.07.2017  JAGMOHAN SINGH     ANITA KAPOOR     DHARAM PAL

                     MEMBER                   MEMBER                PRESIDENT

 

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

 

                                          

                                            

                                                DHARAM PAL                                                                                         PRESIDENT