Haryana

Karnal

182/2012

Bal Krishan Sharma S/o Jai Narian - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijle Vitran Nigam Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajbir Sharma

16 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No.182 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt.:03.04.2012

                                                               Date of decision 16.02.2017

 

Bal Kishan Sharma, Advocate son of Shri Jai Narain, resident of E-11, School Area Nilokheri District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub-Division, Nilokheri through its Sub Divisional Officer (Operation)

                                                                   ………… Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Complainant in person.

                    Shri B.P.Singh Advocate for opposite party.

                    

                    

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he was having electric meter connection installed in his premises bearing house no.E-11, School Area Nilokheri, having account no.SN11-0158-W. He had been paying the electricity bill regularly and nothing was outstanding against him. In the bill no.00597 for the month of January to March 2012, the opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.4736/- as extra charges other than the energy charges of Rs.1573/-. On 30.3.2012, he reached the office of the opposite party to deposit the amount of Rs.1573/-, but the cashier of the opposite party refused to receive the energy charges from him and demanded Rs.4736/- more also. He asked about the reason for charges of Rs.4736/- and then the cashier told that the said amount was for extra security. It has further been pleaded that he deposited Rs.10,250/- as security, vide receipt no.306 dated 2.6.2010. Prior to deposit of the said amount, he had also deposited Rs.277/- as security at the time of installation of the meter in his premises. The opposite party had not explained under which provision of law the amount of Rs.4736/- was demanded from him. Thus, the demand raised by the opposite party was illegal and unlawful.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that the complaint is an abuse of process of law; that the complainant has no cause of action; that this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint as per provisions of section 145 of the Electricity Act.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the amount of Rs.4736/-was added in the account of complainant as per sales circular no.U-43/2006. according to which the opposite party was entitled to get the additional consumption charges after taking average of two bills in a year. The said amount was added in the account of the complainant after taking his average consumption and was rightly debited in his account. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit EX.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit Suresh Chand CA Ex.OP1/A and document Ex.OP1/B have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite party.

6.                The complainant has challenged the demand of Rs.4736/- raised by the opposite party as additional consumption security alongwith consumption charges bill for the months of January to March 2012. The opposite party has submitted that the said demand was raised as per sales circular no.U-43/2006 as additional consumption charges after taking average of two bills in a year. Copy of sales circular no.U-43/2006 Ex.OP1/B shows that in view of provisions of the regulations and subsequent approval from the State Government instructions are laid for the recovery of the additional consumption security from the existing consumers. An amount equivalent to consumption charges of four months in respect of domestic and non-domestic consumption, where bi- monthly billing was involved, was to be recovered as consumption security against any default in payment during the period of agreement for supply of energy. The complainant has produced the copy of the receipt no.306 dated 2.6.2010 according to which he had deposited Rs.10250/- towards additional security charges.

7.                It is pertinent to note that the opposite party had not issued any notice to the complainant giving details of the demand of Rs.4736/- raised from the complainant as additional security charges. The complainant had already deposited the amount of Rs.10,250/- as additional security on 2.6.2010. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the opposite party to explain to the complainant through notice as to why the further demand of Rs.4736/- was being raised towards additional security for consumption charges and what was the basis for raising such additional demand. The opposite party cannot charge any additional amount without affording proper hearing opportunity to its consumers. Even if, no notice is issued then also the opposite party is bound to give the details of the demanded amount when such request is made by the consumer or he raises dispute with regard to the demand. The opposite party has not given the details regarding the basis on which the demand of Rs.4736/- was raised, in the written statement and no document has been produced in evidence to justify the demand. Under such fact and circumstances, the demand of Rs.4736/- by the opposite party from the complainant is not legally justified and the same is null and void.

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and restrain the opposite party from recovering of the disputed amount of Rs.4736/- from the complainant.  We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2200/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment as well as for the litigation expenses. However, the opposite party would be at liberty to issue fresh notice of demand giving details and basis of the additional demand of security for consumption. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 16.02.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member