Haryana

Ambala

CC/100/2018

Kamal Dhiman - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

09 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.         :  100 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution           :   14.03.2018

                                                          Date of decision     :    09.12.2019.

 

Kamal Dhiman son of Shri Ram Karan, Aged 32 years, R/o Singha Wala Ambala City.

          ……. Complainant.

 

1. U.H.B.V.N. Ltd., through S.D.O. (Operation) Sub Division EAST, Division Ambala City.
2. XEN, Operation, U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. Division Ambala, Distt. Ambala.

                                                               ….…. Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu, President.

                    Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.          

                            

Present:       Shri Avtar Singh Turka, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri Vivek Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’), praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To withdraw the demand of Rs. 74834/- as shown in electricity bill of the complainant for the period from 15.11.2017 to 25.01.2018 and not to disconnect the electricity connection.
2. To pay Rs.10,000 /- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.5500/- as litigation charges.

 

•  

 

Any other relief whichthis Hon’ble Forum may deemfit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is owner of house measuring 100 sq yards situated at Village Singawala, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala. He applied for new domestic electric connection in the said house and OPs installed electric connection bearing account No.8224250226 with a sanctioned load of 3 K.W. He was paying the electricity bills regularly. He got shocked, when he received a bill from the OP No.1 for consumption of 192 units, of Rs.74,834/-, wherein Rs.71,805/- was mentioned as arrears. He immediately contacted the OP No.1 and apprised them regarding the exaggerated bill. The Ops told him that they had transferred the arrears of another meter having account No.1058620000, which was in the name of Ram Rattan.  He requested the OPs to rectify the bill as per consumption, but they instead of doing the needful had threatened to disconnect the electric connection. Hence, the present complaint. 

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written version and have raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action and not coming this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts. On merits it is stated that originally the electricity connection was in the name of Ram Rattan and he had not deposited the bills of electricity since January 2014 and on 14.10.2015 a sum of Rs.53,968/- was outstanding in the account of said Ram Rattan and due to default in payment of bills, the electricity connection was disconnected permanently vide PDCO order. After that the complainant applied for new DS category electricity connection being  the  owner of the said premises and on his request, the connection was released in his name.  Regular payment of Bill by the complainant is a matter of record and the complainant is liable to prove the same strictly. On 06.06.2017, the premises where the electricity connection was installed in the name of complainant, was got checked by the competent officials of the OPs and it was found that complainant was consuming the electricity connection in his house as well as in his shop un-authorizedly. The SDO concerned imposed fine of Rs.10,106/- for unauthorized use of electricity by the complainant and JE concerned also reported on LL-1 No.27/424 dated 06.06.2017 that a sum of Rs.62,288/- was also outstanding against the said connection. In total the complainant was to pay Rs.62,288/-+10,106/-=72,394/-. Accordingly, on  29.07.2017, the bill was raised for actual consumption by adding defaulting amount +penalty i.e total Rs.89,021/-. But the complainant out of the said amount deposited Rs.30,000/-, on 30.11.2017 as part payment and balance amount of Rs.69,539/- is still outstanding against the complainant. He was asked to sign the checking report, but he refused to put his signatures on it. The complainant never approached them for rectification of the bill. OPs are competent to recover the arrears from the complainant being having due qua the same premises against the electricity connection which was earlier in the name of Shri Ram Rattan. The complainant himself claims that he has become owner of the same premises on the bases of blood-related Transfer Deed. The bill raised to the complainant is nit extracted rather it was raised after adding defaulting amount +penalty +actual consumption.  There is no deficiency on the part of the OPs and the complaint filed against them may be dismissed with costs.

3.                Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Manish Kumar and Vinod Kumar, Junior Engineer (JE), O/o Operation Sub Division, UHBVNL, East, Badshahi Bagh, Ambala City as Annexure OP-A & OP-B respectively alongwith documents Annexure OP1 to OP3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant was paying the electricity bills regularly. However, the OPs vide bill dated 19.02.2018, Annexure C-3, raised the bill of Rs.74,834/- by adding Rs.71,805/- as arrears.  The arrears amount of Rs.71,805/- added by the OPs in the said bill was due against the electric connection installed in the name of Ram Rattan and not against the electric connection of the complainant.

                   On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs vehemently argued that the premises of the complainant was checked by the inspection team. On checking, it was found that the complainant was using the electricity in his house as well as in his shop from the said connection and the said inspection team imposed fine of Rs.10,106/- for unauthorized usage of the electricity by the complainant. Since, the complainant was indulged in using the electricity connection un-authorizedly, therefore, he is not a Consumer and the present complaint filed by him is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable before this Hon’ble Forum.  In support of this contention he has placed reliance on the Judgement dated 01.07.2013, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad.

6.                From the checking report dated 06.06.2017, Annexure OP1, it is apparent that the complainant was indulged in un-authorized usage of electricity. In the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in para No.46 of the judgement  has held that:

46. The act of indulgence in “unauthorized use of electricity” by a person, as defined in clause (b) of the Explanation below Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 neither has any relationship with “unfair trade practice” or “restrictive trade practice” or “deficiency in service” nor does it amounts to hazardous services by the license. Such acts of “unauthorized use of electricity” has nothing to do with charging price in excess of the price. Therefore, acts of person in indulging in “unauthorized use of electricity” do not fall within the meaning of “complaint”, as we have noticed above and, therefore, the “complaint” against assessment under Section 126 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The Commission has already noticed that the offences referred to in Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In that view of the matter also the complaint against any action taken under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

7.                In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case referred to above, we hereby dismiss the present complaint being not maintainable. The parties are left to bear their own costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate court or Authority for redressal of his grievance and seek condonation of delay, if any for the period for which the instant complaint remained pending before this Forum. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :09.12.2019

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member                       President