Haryana

Panchkula

CC/50/2017

REKHA RANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

PAWAN KUMAR

23 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.        

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	50 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	08.03.2017
Date of Decision	:	23.11.2017

 

Rekha Rani, aged 34 years, W/o Umesh Kumar, R/o House No.48, Police Line Moginand, Tehsil and District Panchkula.

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkua.
2. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Sub-Divisional Officer (Operation), City Sub-Division, Industrial Area Phase-II, Panchkula.
3. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Executive Engineer/Operation Division, 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:   Mr.Pawan Kumar, Adv., for the complainant.

Ms.Alka Joshi, Advocate for OPs.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that the complainant was allotted a government quarter i.e. House No.48, Police Line Moginand, Panchkula and after the allotment of the government accommodation, the complainant got installed electricity meter from the Ops, which was installed on 10.9.2011 vide domestic meter connection bearing account NO.A27P5531946X and the complainant paid all the bills of the said electricity meter/account number.   Since the time of installation of the meter connection and till June, 2013 the maximum consumed unit was 160 in summer and 90 maximum in winter season. It is also not out of place to mention here that in the electricity bill raised by the Ops, the bill was issued on the basis of the consumption charges, whereas, in the bills the old reading was shown as “1” and the new as “0”. In the most of the bill the old reading was less than the new reading.  The complainant number of time requested to correct the said bills, but the Ops always assured to adjust the amount in subsequent bills, but till date no amount was adjusted by the Ops.  It was great shock and surprise to the complainant when the complainant received bill dated 19.11.2013 issued by the OP in which the unit consumed was shown as 500, whereas, the complainant and her husband used to stay outside during day hours and only returned in the night after attending their respective duties and hence used to consume less electricity. Thereafter, the OP again issued the bills for the subsequent months in which the unit consumption was shown at higher side. Finding no option the complainant brought the said fact into the knowledge of the Ops and requested to get checked the meter as the same seems to become defective. On the complaint of the complainant the J.E of the Ops visited the premises and removed the meter for inspection on 15.6.2014 and assured that the faulty bills will be corrected after the report of the laboratory. Another meter was installed at the premises. In the said new electricity meter the unit consumption was shown as 111 units. But after raising the bill the said meter was removed by the Ops in the month of July, 2014, on the pretext either to deposit the amount of bills raised i.e. Rs. 17,032/- otherwise the complainant will not be allowed to use the electricity. The above amount of RS. 17,032/- was to be corrected on the basis of “Average” consumption of the new meter, but the Ops failed miserably.  It was further to the shock of the complainant that the Ops after removal of the meter sent a illegal bill to the extract money from the complainant therein showing the consumption of the units as 6008, whereas, on the ground no meter was installed at the present premises. The complainant visited the OP with the said illegal bill and disclosed the actual facts that the Ops had issued the illegal bill without reconnecting the electricity supply. On this the concerned official retained the bill stating that he would look into the meter, but nothing had been done. Again the Ops sent a bill in the month of September, 2014 issued another bill for the unit of 2224 amounting to Rs. 80,655/- in spite of the fact that no meter was installed at the premises of the complainant.  Since July, 2014 there was no meter at the premises of the complainant and the complainant under the compelled circumstances passing their days without the electricity and kept residing with the parents of the husband of the complainant. The complainant has to bear the rent of the allotted official accommodation without using the same due to the fault of the Ops and complainant suffering monetarily. Thereafter, complainant visited many times before the Ops, but no response. Finding no option the complainant through her husband sought information under Right to Information Act for the inspection report of the earlier meter which was removed on the request of the complainant for inspection. Then the information was supplied and as per the said information it was duly confirmed that the meter was defective one. But the OPs having knowledge about the same putting undue pressure upon the complainant to deposit the illegal amount raised by them without consuming the electricity. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Initially, the Opposite Parties were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.4.2017, and thereafter, the Ops filed a revision petition before the Hon’ble State Commission for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 24.4.2017. The Hon’ble State Commission accepted the revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated 24.4.2017 and the Ops were directed to appear before this Forum and to file the written version.    The Ops appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant is not maintainable nor the complainant got any locus standi to file the same; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from the Forum.  The Ops installed an electricity connection bearing Account No.PS53/1946-X. Since the date of installation of electricity connection, the complainant is defaulter in making the payment of electricity charges regularly. The Ops while overhauling the bills inadvertently sent the bill to the tune of Rs. 63,926/- for a period of 26 months on average basis. The Ops further revised the said bill and during the said audit, the Ops found error in calculating the units and the bill was raised on actual consumption and bill of Rs. 49,162/- was raised due towards the complainant. Since the Ops previously issued the bill of Rs. 63,926/- therefore, the department adjusted the amount of Rs. 15,204/- which was raised inadvertently from the complainant.  The complainant submitted an application to the Office of Ops for change of meter in the month of July, 2014. In the month of September, 2014 the department changed the electricity bill. The department further inadvertently issued the bill of Rs. 16,456/-. But the actual bill was Rs. 968/-. The Ops corrected the bill to the tune of Rs. 968/- instead of Rs. 16,456/- and the said bill of Rs. 15,943/- was adjusted in the next bill. The Ops verified the account of the complainant and after thorough checking, the department raised the bill of Rs. 83,026/- vide bill dated 28.11.2014 and the department has deducted the amount of Rs. 31,147/- (i.e. Rs. 15,204/- and Rs. 15,943/- which were raised inadvertently from the complainant) and now a sum of Rs. 63,297/- is due towards the complainant including surcharges. The complainant has failed to deposit the amount so the OP permanently disconnected the meter on 15.9.2014. Now, the OP on dated 29.2.2016, a single point meter was installed in the name of Moginand Police Line vide  bearing account No. BS/31 and the Ops have nothing to do with that whether they supplied electricity to the complainant or not. Since the complainant has failed to deposit the amount on due date, therefore, the department has raised further bill of Rs. 63,297/- after adding the surcharge. Now, the complainant is liable to pay Rs. 63, 297/- i.e. arrears of bills including surcharge to the office of the Ops. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Rather the complainant is at his own fault as the complainant has failed to deposit the electricity charges.  It is wrong that the time of installation of the meter connection and till June, 2016 the maximum consumed unit was 160 in summer season and 90 maximum in winter season. The bills were raised as per consumption charges.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of OPs 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-20 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 to R-4 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the complainant appearing in person and learned counsel for the Ops and have perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. After hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties and going through the complaint and documents placed on the case file which transpires that the complainant has disputed the bill issued by the Ops for the month of September, 2014 by filing the present complaint on 08.03.2017 after a lapse of about 2 years and 8 months. The complainant has also not filed any application for condonation of delay along with complaint. Hence the present complaint is time barred. On perusal of the case file, it also reveals that the meter of the complainant was removed from the premises of the complainant in the month of July, 2014, therefore, the cause of action arose in the month of July, 2014 and September, 2014 when the alleged bill was issued by the Ops, but the complaint was filed on 08.03.2017 after expiry of two years of limitation. Moreover, the complainant in his complaint has mentioned that he had filed an application under section 22 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 for settlement of dispute which was later on withdrawn with liberty to file fresh before the competent court, but the complainant has not placed on record any such order. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act is as under:-

“24-A. Limitation period-(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(20    Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.

        Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

6. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the complaint is time barred and it deserves to be dismissed. Hence, we dismissed the complaint and the parties shall bear their own costs.
7. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to records after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

23.11.2017          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