BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No.470 of 2010
Date of Instt. 7.07.2010
Date of decision: 2.02.2015
Mehar Singh son of Sh.Khajan Singh resident of ward No.8, Karnal road, village Assandh district Karnal.
……..Complainant.
Vs.
Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Division, Assandh district Karnal through its SDO (OP).
…..Opposite Party.
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.
Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.
.
Present:- Sh.Akash Gupta Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.K.K.Deswal Advocate for the OP
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaints against the OP u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that the complainant is the consumer qua the Ops vide electricity connection bearing account No. AS20-1336 & AS20-1338.It has been further alleged that the complainant received bill dated 7.2.2010 amounting to Rs.6698/- and in the said bill an amount of Rs.5396/- has been added in excess on account of development charges. It has been alleged that in fact the complainant was not liable to pay the alleged development charges and the complainant requested the OP to withdraw the said amount from the bill but in vain which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP and has prayed that the OP be directed to withdraw the said alleged demand and also be directed to pay the compensation for the harassment caused him alongwith the litigation charges. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contents of the present complaint.
2. On notice the OP appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the present complaint was not maintainable; that the complainant has got no loucs standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and that the present complaint was an abuse of the process of law.
On merits factum of issuance of the bill has not been denied but it was contended that the amount of Rs.5396 and 6698/- has been demanded by the complainant on account of development charges and the said demand has been raised in view of the margin report bearing NO.4 dated 27.11.2007. Thus, it was contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
4. However, from the evidence on the file and circumstances of the present case, it emerges vide bill dated 7.2.2010 C2 & Bill dated 7.2.2010 Ex.C3the amount of the amount of Rs.5396 and 6998/- have been included in the account AS20-1338F and account No. AS20-1336W for the first time . Therefore, from the circumstances of the present case it merges that the Ops have raised this demand of Rs.5396 and 6698/- after a period of more than three years of the date of the its becoming due because as per written statement filed by the OP, the said amounts is due prior to 27.11.2007.
5. For the decision of this case, we also deem it proper to refer to Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, wherein it has been mentioned as under:
Not withstanding 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 license shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.”
6. For the first time, in the bill dated 7.2.2010 Ex. C2 & Bill dated 7.2.2010 Ex.C3 the amount of the amount of Rs.5396 and 6998/- have been included in the account AS20-1338F and account No. AS20-1336W for the first time /-.This amount relates prior to 27.11.2007 and this amount has not been demanded by the OP from the complainant and for the first time this amount has been demanded by the OP from the complainant on 7.2.2010 vide bills Ex.C2 and Ex.C3. As per Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 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 license shall not cut off the supply of the electricity and such the demand of Rs.5396 and 6998/- raised by the OP from the complainant for the first time on 2.07.2010 has become time barred and the same cannot be demanded by the OP from the complainant.
7. Therefore, as a sequel to our above discussion it has to be held that demand of Rs.5396 and 6998/- from the complainant by the OP is illegal and unjustified. Therefore, we direct the OP to withdraw the said demand of Rs.5396/- and 6998/- (as shown in the bill dated 2,7,2010 Ex.C2 & Ex.C3) from the complainant. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.2200/- for the legal fee and litigation expenses. The present complaint is accepted accordingly. The OPs shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
02.02.2015 (Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Smt.Shashi Sharma)
Member
Present:- Sh.Akash Gupta Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.K.K.Deswal Advocate for the OP
Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
02.02.2015 (Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Smt.Shashi Sharma)
Member
