Haryana

Ambala

CC/186/2021

Ram Narain - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	186 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	16.06.2021
Date of decision	:	01.05.2023

 

RAM NARAIN S/O Sada Nand Bakshi, Resident of # 234, Prem Nagar, Ambala City, Tehsil- Ambala City, Distt- Ambala (Haryana).

          ……. Complainant

                                                Versus

1. UTTER Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd, (UHBVN) through SDO, Model Town, Ambala City- Distt-Ambala.
2. UTTER Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd, (UHBVN) through Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle, Ambala City.
3. UTTER Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd,(UHBVN), through The Chief Engineer (OP) Shakti Bhawan - Sector-6, Panchkula (Haryana)

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                             Shri Deepak Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the OPs

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (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 issue forthcoming bill after correction as per actual consumption.
2. To not to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant.
3. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. till date realization, on account of harassment, mental agony loss of valuable time suffered by the complainant on account of deficiency of service on the part of OPs.

Or

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is resident of House No-234, Prem Nagar, Ambala City, Tehsil- Ambala City, Distt- Ambala (Haryana) consumer. OP No.1 is SDO of Electricity Board, Model Town, Ambala City, Distt- Ambala and OPs No. 2 and 3 are the main department of Electricity Board (UHBVN). The complainant obtained an electricity connection of DS category bearing Account No-4980720000 at his address mentioned above with a sanctioned load of 4.1 KW. The complainant is consuming electricity against the regular payments of bills issued by OP No.1 and is using the electric energy as per instructions given by the official of the OPs. In the Month of Mar 2017 old electric meter of the complainant had been replaced by the representative of OP No.1, and the new Electric Meter bearing No-826088 had installed on the pole outside the house of the complainant. OP No.1 was issuing electric bills regularly to the complainant and he was paying the same in time. The status of new electric Meter is working OK from the date of installation till date. So many requests were made by the complainant to the OPs to raise the actual bill, but every time they told to the complainant that the MCO Register is not updated. However, the complainant was shocked when the representatives of OP No.1 told him that new electric meter is not mentioned in records of OP No.1, despite the fact that five years have elapsed after installation thereof.  On 10-6-2021 the complainant was astonished when he received an Electric Bill bearing Bill No-498076883229 dated 17-03-2021 for an amount of Rs.1,76,972/- and after due date it was to be paid @ Rs.1,82,122/-. After receiving the above said bill, the complainant immediately approached the OPs and requested to check the bill as per energy consumption. Upon that, the OPs told the complainant that in the year Mar 2017 the Electric Meter was removed outside on Electric Pole and till date, by mistake, the records of New Installed Electric Meter (MCO) could not be entered in the register from Mar 2017 to Dec 2020, and that they were sending average bill to the complainant for the said period. Thereafter, on 14 Jun 2021 the complainant received a bill bearing No-498076698349 dated 20-05-2021 in which amount mentioned for payment was Rs.60878/- after deduction of  Sundry charge of Rs.1,25,006/-.  The complainant requested the OPs number of time that he cannot be penalized on account of their fault and also requested to raise demand as per actual electricity consumed by him, but to no avail.  The complainant is ready to deposit the amount as per energy consumption, as it is not his mistake because he was paying the bill regularly which was being sent to him by the OPs.  Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version wherein they raised preliminary objections to the effect that this complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has suppressed material facts; the complainant is not a consumer etc. On merits, while admitting the factual matrix of the case to the effect that electric meter of the complainant was replaced in the month of March 2017 and new electric meter was installed, it has been stated that correct electricity bill has been sent to the complainant as per the actual energy as such, the question of reduction of excess surcharge/arrears does not arise. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Dimple Gera, Commercial Assistant Utter Haryana Bijli Vitram Nigam, SDO, Modal Town, Ambala City as Annexure OP-1/A alongwith document Annexure OP-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
5.           We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Complainant submitted that since it was the fault on the part of the OPs that they failed to keep the MCO record of old meter and also the record of new meter aforesaid, starting from the year 2017 when the old meter was removed and the new meter was installed and at the same time, the bills which were raised during the years 2017 to 2020 on average basis were paid by him regularly as such, now the OPs cannot raise any previous demands for the said period and on the other hand, by doing so, the OPs are deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice, thereby causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant.  
7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs submitted that correct bills were raised by the OPs and the complainant is liable to pay the same.
8.           The moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, the OPs were right in raising demand to the tune of Rs.60,878/- vide bill dated 20.05.2021, Annexure C-1. It may be stated here that it is not in dispute that when the meter in question was replaced with a new one in the year 2017 by the OPs, thereafter, they kept on raising demands from the complainant on average basis, which had been paid by the complainant regularly. However, it is coming out from the record and also stated by the complainant that it was on account of mistake on the part of the OPs as they failed to trace the old meter in question for taking down the actual reading thereof qua consumption of the electricity and the record of the new meter was also not entered in their record, and on the other hand, after a period of more than four years, they suddenly raised the demand of Rs.60,878/-, over and above the current cycle charges to the tune of Rs.3,761/-, for the period from 18.03.2021 to 20.05.2021, vide bill dated 20.05.2021, Annexure C-1, from the complainant.  This admission of non tracing of the old meter is found admitted by the OPs in the Site Verification Report, Annexure C-4, wherein the JE concerned i.e Sh.Sushil Kumar has clearly written that “The existing meter replaced during the relocation of meter in 2017 and the old meter is not traceable”.  In our considered opinion, by raising such a demand in the year 2021 for previous years of more than 4 years starting from the year 2017, especially, when the fault if any lies with the OPs only as they failed to trace the old meter and also did not have the record of the new meter installed at the premises of the complainant, the OPs have violated 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.

 

Section 56 (2) clearly says that, no amount due from a customer is recoverable after a period of two years from the date on which it became first duefrom a customer is recoverable after aperiod of ttwo years from the date on which it became first due.Secondly, there is also violation of Section 56 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 by the OPs, which says that where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him, a notice of not less than 15 days in writing is mandatory to be given to the consumer. However, no answer whatsoever has been given by the OPs as to why such a notice under section 56 (1) was not given to the complainant. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that by raising demand of Rs.60,878/- for the period from 18.03.2021 to 20.05.2021, vide bill dated 20.05.2021 Annexure C-1, despite the fact that average bills were being raised by the OPs from the complainant for the period from 2017 to 2020, which had been paid by the complainant and not specifically denied by the OPs, as such, the OPs shall withdraw the bill dated 20.05.2021. It may be stated here that the amount of Rs.15,219/- which had already been paid by the complainant to the OPs, as directed by this Commission vide order dated 17.06.2021, is liable to be adjusted by the OPs in the forthcoming bills qua the meter installed at the residence of the complainant.

9.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, in the following manner:-

1. To withdraw the bill dated 25.05.2021 and adjust the amount of Rs.15,219/-, which had already been paid by the complainant in compliance of the order dated 17.06.2021 passed by this Commission, in the forthcoming bills qua the new meter installed at the residence of the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.2,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses.  

The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Certified copy 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:- 01.05.2023

 

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