BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, AMBALA
Complaint case no. : 350 of 2017
Date of Institution : 12.10.2017
Date of decision : 10.09.2018
Suresh Pal son of Sh. Banta Ram, resident of Village Tandwali, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.
……. Complainant.
Vs.
1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam Ltd. through Executive Engineer, Operation Division UHBVN, Ambala Cantt, 12 Cross Road, Ambala Cantt.
2. The SDO, ‘Operation’ Sub-Division, UHBVN, Barara, VPO Barara, District Ambala.
….…. Opposite Parties
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President,
Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.
Present: Sh. Saravjeet Singh, counsel for complainant.
Sh. Chandeep Bindra, counsel for the Ops.
ORDER:
In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had obtained an electricity connection of Domestic Supply Category with the sanctioned load of 2 KW from OP No.2 vide account No. BD47-1153-A. The said electricity connection is installed at the residential house of the complainant at village Tandwali. Vide bill dated 15.08.2017, OP No.2 demanded from the complainant a sum of Rs. 11,239.50 on account of sundry charges. The complainant had been regularly paying the electricity bills and no amount on account of arrears of consumption charges are outstanding to be paid by the complainant to UHBVN. After the receipt of the said bill, the complainant inquired from the officials present in the office of OP No.2, the details of the said sundry charges but they failed to disclose any details. After that the complainant moved a written representation to the OP No.2 wherein the complainant made the request to recall the demand in question. In response to said written representation of the complainant, the OP No.2 gave a vague reply wherein the OP No.2 stated the demand had been raised on the ground that yet another electricity connection was installed in question was outstanding against the said electricity connection on the name of the father of the complainant. The complainant further submitted that the electricity connection on the name of the father of the complainant was installed in some other premises and the same was disconnected about 4-5 years down the line. As such the demand raised by the Ops is also barred by limitation. Before bebiting the amount in question in the account of the complainant the Ops never served any notice and as such no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the complainant by the Ops. Thus, the OPs are harassing the complainant mentally by issuing the wrong and exaggerated bill. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and tendered written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable, no cause of action, locus standi and not come to the court with clean hands. On merits, OPs stated that the official of the OP No.2 had explained all the details of the sundry charges to the complainant on his visit in the office of OP No.2 but the complainant had started picking up quarrel in office of the OP No.2 and instead of depositing the said amount, leave the office of the Ops. They also submitted that the father of the complainant, namely Banta Ram having an electricity connection bearing No. BD98-4661 and the above said connection was disconnected vide PDCO No.005981 Sr. No.454 dated 29.02.2012 due to burning of meter and arrears of electricity charges. The complainant and his father in active connivance with each other just to cause loss to the Ops instead of depositing the arrears of Rs. 11239.50 against the above said connection cleverly and mischievously got the electricity connection in the name of the complainant. Recently in year 2017 while auditing the accounts of the consumers from whom arrears of elecrtricity were due, then it has come to the notice of the Ops that an amount of Rs. 11239.50 is outstanding against the electricity connection No.BD-98-4661 connection lying installed in the name of the father in the same premises, in which the complainant had obtained the electricity connection bearing no. BD47-1153A. So, the Ops according to the procedure bebited the amount of Rs. 11239.50 in the account number of the complainant vide bill dated 15.08.2017. So, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
3. To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A alongwith documents as annexure C-1 to C-8 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OPs have also tendered affidavit as Annexure R-A alongwith documents as annexure R-1 to R-3 and closed their evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. The complainant has challenged the Memo No. 3503 dated 14.09.2017 Annexure C-8 which was issued by the Ops for payment of the defaulting amount outstanding against account of Banta Ram s/o Jitu Ram. As per Annexure C-8 the defaulting amount Rs. 11,239.50/- is pertaining to the year 2012 because the connection of Banta Ram was disconnected vide PDCO No.005981 Sr. 454 dated 29.02.2012 as mentioned in the written statement by the Ops. It is not disputed the Banta Ram was consumer in the same premises where the complainant is using the electricity connection. The defaulting amount has been debited in the bill Annexure C-1 issued on 15.08.2017. It is clear from the bill Annexure C-1 the defaulting amount shown in the above said bill first time has been demanding on 15.08.2017. Even otherwise, the perusal of the notice Annexure C-8, the outstanding amount was transferred on 14.09.2017. The learned counsel for the complainant that the amount is not recoverable under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act which reads as under:
“56. Disconnection of supply in default of payment.
(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 arrears of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity”.
The counsel for the Ops have argued that amount is not time barred because the father of the complainant was having the connection on the same premises and an amount can be added in the account of the complainant by way of issuing the notice. No doubt the father of the complainant was having the connection on the same premises but connection has been disconnected in the year 2012. The OPs can raised the demand of the defaulting amount from the complainant when they have issued the connection to the complainant in the year 2016 as mentioned in the written statement filed by the Ops.
5. We have gone through the Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act. It is admitted fact that the amount was outstanding against Banta Ram in the year 2012 and the connection was disconnected on PDCO No. 005981 Sr. 454 Dated 29.02.2012. Except the notice dated 14.09.2017 Annexure C-8 as well as bill dated 15.08.2017 Annexure C-1 the Ops have not taken any step to recovery of amount. As per section 56(2) of Electricity Act, no sum 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 arrears of charges for electricity supplied, hence, the amount of Rs. 11,239.50/- is not recoverable from the complainant being time barred. Further, our Hon’ble State Commission (Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana Panchkula) has held in one similar case titled as Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rajji Bai reported in 2009(1) CLT Pg. 526 that “ Electricity Act, 2003, Section 56-Sales Circular No. 27/96-Electricity bill-Sundry Charges-Demand made by Ops on the basis of objection raised by the Audit Party-Ops were duty bound to supply the necessary details of the audit report and to give a proper notice in terms of the Sales Circular which it has not complied with-Demand also barred in view of Section 56 of the Act, 2003-Order of the District Forum setting aside the demand upheld”.
6. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the notice dated 14.9.2017 as well as bill dated 15.08.2017 are hereby quashed and the Ops are not entitled to recovery the said amount under the garb of this notice as discussed above. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced on : 10.09.2018
(PUSHPENDER KUMAR) (D.N. ARORA)
Member President
