Haryana

StateCommission

A/1567/2017

RAVISH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

08 May 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1567 of 2017

Date of Institution:        19.12.2017

Date of Decision :         08.05.2018

 

Ravish Kumar s/o Sh. Dharam Pal, Resident of House No.19-B Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Sub Divisional Officer, Model Town, Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

2.      The Executive Engineer (OP) Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Yamuna Nagar.

3.      Incharge Audit Party office of Chief Auditor, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

4.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through Managing Director.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Dharam Pal-father of the appellant.

                             Ms. Alka Joshi, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred against the order dated September 28^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (for short ‘the District Forum’).    

2.                Ravish Kumar-complainant (appellant herein) was provided domestic electricity connection bearing account No.YT-25/20279 by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited – Opposite Parties/respondents, in residential house No.19-B, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar. The complainant used to make payment of the electricity bills regularly. On January 12^th, 2014 the complainant received electricity bill (Annexure C-1) wherein an amount of Rs.22,760/- was added on account of overhauling of the  electricity account from the month of October, 2009 up to the month of December, 2011. Before debiting the above mentioned amount in the account of the complainant, no prior notice was given. Legally and technically also, as provided under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the consumer is not liable to pay any amount after expiry of period of two years from the date when such sum became first time due. The opposite parties did not withdrew the above mentioned bill amount despite time and again requests by the complainant. The complainant had to face un-necessary harassment and mental agony and he is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony also.

3.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to withdrew their claim regarding payment of an amount of Rs.22,760/- being barred by limitation; to pay an amount of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. The opposite parties also be restrained from disconnecting the electricity connection.

4.                The opposite parties in their written version have taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts and conduct and that it is a case of deficiency in service. It is pleaded that the complainant has concealed true and material facts from the District Forum. In fact, the electricity meter installed in the premises of the complainant became defective in the year 2010. Thereafter, the opposite parties used to issue electricity bills on average basis. Thereafter, account of the complainant was overhauled by the internal audit department vide its half margin audit report. On the basis of observation made in the audit report by the audit party and as per meter reading recorded by the consumer with new electricity meter for a period of six months, an amount of Rs.22,759.77 was added in the current charges. Keeping in mind the consumption of electricity after installation of the new electricity meter, the complainant could not justify low consumption of electricity during the period the electricity meter was defective. The electricity account has been overhauled in view of the instructions issued in Sales Circular No.U-6/2006 and Sales Manual instructions No.4.12.1.  The complainant is not entitled to the relief as claimed in the complaint and is liable to pay the amount mentioned above. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.

5.                Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.

6.                After hearing arguments vide impugned order dated 28^th September, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

7.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated 28^th September, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum, the complainant-appellant has filed the present First Appeal No.1567 of 2017 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to grant relief as claimed in the complaint.

8.                We have heard Shri Dharam Pal authorised representative on behalf of the appellant; Ms. Alka Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the case file.

9.                It is admitted fact that the complainant-Ravish Kumar was provided domestic electricity connection bearing account No.YT-25/2079 in his residential house No.19-B, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar. The complainant used to pay the electricity bills regularly.  As mentioned in the report of U.H.B.V.N., Internal Audit Department Half Margin (Annexure R-1), the bimonthly consumption of electricity on this electricity connection was shown as 80 units from October 23^rd, 2009 up to February 20^th, 2012.  Thereafter, in the next bimonthly electricity bill regarding the period from February 20^th, 2012 up to April 20^th, 2012, the reading is shown as 293 units. The complainant used to make payment of the electricity bills regularly prior to January 20^th, 2014 regarding the period from October 20^th, 2013 up to December 20^th, 2013. Problem arose when the complainant received electricity bill dated January 12^th, 2014 regarding the above mentioned period (Annexure C-1) wherein an amount of Rs.22,760/- was added mentioning as average adjustment. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the above mentioned amount was added in the electricity bill (Annexure C-1) as the electricity account belonging to the complainant was overhauled after receiving Internal Audit Department Half Margin report (Annexure R-1). The audit party has mentioned regarding charging an amount of Rs.22,760/- from the complainant on six months bimonthly average consumption basis after a new electricity meter was installed replacing old defective electricity meter. It will be pertinent to mention here that the reading of the electricity meter remained 80 units bimonthly from October 23^rd, 2009 up to February 20^th, 2012. Considering this fact that reading of the electricity meter remained 80 units bimonthly for such a long period, observations can be made that there appears to be possibilities that the electricity meter was defective. However, it will be pertinent to mention here that in fact the opposite parties did not adduce any evidence to prove that the electricity meter installed in the premises of the complainant remained defective.

10.              In fact, the opposite parties did not adduce any document or any other convincing evidence to prove that the electricity meter which remained in existence prior to the month of October, 2011 ever became defective or the same was replaced. No documentary evidence has been produced to prove that the complainant ever filed any complaint before the opposite parties that the electricity meter had become defective and the same be replaced with a new one. In the written version at few places, it is mentioned that the electricity meter became defective but the opposite parties should have adduced clear evidence that on which date the old electricity meter was replaced and what was the defect in the electricity meter. The constant reading of the electricity meter regarding consumption of electricity is 80 units bimonthly for such a long time may be due to fault of the meter reader also. Anyhow even if it be presumed that the electricity meter was defective during the above mentioned period, it was the duty of the officials of the opposite parties to check the electricity meter and to remove the defects in the same, if any. In case it was not possible to remove defects to replace the defective electricity meter.

11.              Although the opposite parties could not prove that the electricity meter remained defective for such a long time. Anyhow even if for the sake of arguments it be considered that the electricity meter remained defective up to February 20^th, 2012, in that eventuality also, we feel the opposite parties are not entitled to recover the amount in dispute raised Rs.22,760/- from the complainant being barred by limitation. The opposite parties raised demand of the disputed amount first time when electricity bill (Annexure C-1) was issued on January 12^th, 2014 and in that electricity bill the above mentioned amount was added mentioning the average adjustment.  The proposition of law cannot be disputed that any amount due towards the complainant can be recovered by the opposite parties within a period of two years from the date the amount became due as provided under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 which is reproduced below:

 “(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.”

12.              In this case, in the U.H.B.V.N., Internal Audit Department Half Margin (Annexure R-1) also, the date of preparation of the report and issuance of the report is not mentioned.  In this way, certainly observation cannot be made that in which month, date and year the internal audit half margin report was prepared.  Moreover, preparation of the report and mentioning of the amount due towards the complainant in the audit report as Rs.22,760/- is not sufficient because the demand was raised by the opposite parties from the complainant first time on 12^th January, 2014 when electricity bill (Annexure C-1) was issued. Apart from it, before preparation of the above mentioned audit report as well as before taking decision to add the disputed amount of Rs.22,760/- in the electricity bill, no prior notice was given to the complainant. Further legally and technically, if the decision is to be taken for charging amount from the consumer that decision is to be taken by the officers of the Nigam and not by the audit party. The duty of the audit party is to point out defects, if any, and violation of the rules and instructions at the time of preparation of the electricity bills. The observation of the audit party in the internal half margin report cannot be held to be binding. On the basis of objections raised in the audit report, the competent officers of the Nigam can change their decision considering objections and may affirm their earlier decision by giving sound reasons. Now situation is clear that the opposite parties first time raised demand of the above mentioned disputed amount of Rs.22,760/- on January 12^th, 2014. In these circumstances, as per Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, certainly the opposite parties were not entitled to recover any amount regarding consumption of electricity or penalty etc two years prior to the date of raising demand of the amount and informing the consumer regarding amount due towards him. In these circumstances, observations can be safely made that the opposite parties had no right to recover any amount which became due for payment prior to January 12^th, 2012. In this way, out of the total amount of Rs.22,760/-, the amount which has been claimed regarding the period prior to January 12^th, 2012 cannot be recovered from the complainant being barred by limitation.

13.              Now findings can be safely given that the opposite parties were entitled to claim amount by way of demand only regarding the period from December 20^th, 2011 up to February 20^th, 2012 as is evident from the entries in the Internal Audit Department Half Margin (Annexure R-1) on the basis of bimonthly consumption of previous six months consumption of electricity prior to the time when allegedly the electricity meter became defective. Bimonthly consumption of electricity regarding the period from 22.04.2009 to 20.06.2009, 20.06.2009 to 20.08.2009 and 20.08.2009 to 20.10.2009 is shown 529,231 and 432 units respectively.  As provided under Sales Circular No.06/2007, in case the consumer meter is found defective/dead stop, burnt, faulty or premises locked, the consumer shall be billed on the basis of consumption of same months of the preceding year. In case the consumption is not available, the consumer shall be billed on the basis of average of last six months. In this case, no document has been produced to prove consumption of same months of the preceding years. In these circumstances, it will be justified that consumer should be billed on the basis of consumption of last six months. In this way, observations can be made that the opposite parties are entitled to raise demand regarding consumption of electricity regarding the period from 20.12.2011 up to 20.02.2012 on average consumption basis as 318 units (398 units minus 80 units). In this way, the opposite parties are entitled to receive consumption charges only regarding 318 units. To avoid confusion of any type in future, the demand raised by the opposite parties of Rs.22,760/- as mentioned in the electricity bill dated 12^th January, 2014 (Annexure C-1) stands quashed except recovery of an amount due considering consumption of 318 units. The opposite parties are directed to add 318 units in the next billing months and are restrained from effecting recovery of the amount of Rs.22,760/- added in the electricity bill (Annexure C-1). The complainant also shall not be liable to pay any amount, as surcharge, due to non-payment of the disputed amount of Rs.22,760/-.  

14.              As per discussions above, we feel learned District Forum has committed an error while passing the impugned order dated September 28^th, 2017. The impugned order is held illegal, invalid and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. Accordingly, the complaint filed by the complainant stands allowed. The bill dated 12^th January, 2014 (Annexure C-1) is quashed. The opposite parties shall not recover any surcharge or penalty etc due to non-payment of the disputed amount. The opposite parties shall not disconnect the electricity connection in the name of the complainant due to non-payment of the above mentioned amount. However, the opposite parties shall add consumption of 318 units concerned with the disputed period in the next electricity bill.

 

Announced: 08.05.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL