Haryana

Karnal

126/2010

Raj Pal S/o Raghubir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Darshan Singh

28 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.126 of 2010

                                                              Date of instt. 24.2.2010

                                                               Date of decision:29.04.2016

 

 Raj Pal son of Shri Raghubir Singh, resident of village Salwan, tehsil Assandh, District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. Uttaar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2. S.D.O. (OP) Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Assandh, District Karnal.

                                                                  ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

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

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:      Sh.Darshan Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.R.R.Sharma Advocate for opposite parties.

 

 

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he was consumer of the opposite parties in respect of tubewell connection bearing old account no.SR-2/238 and new account no.AP-42/1842-K, for sanctioned load of 5BHP. The said connection was permanently disconnected on account of non-payment of the electricity charges due to some unavoidable circumstances. Opposite party no.1 floated a Waiver Scheme for defaulting consumers of agriculture power, for restoration of their tubewell connections. Accordingly, he applied for restoration of his tubewell connection vide application no. 43181 dated 29.7.2005 and deposited a sum of Rs.2020/- as RCO (Reconnection order) fees on 29.7.2005. He also submitted test report dated 28.7.2005 and completed all other required formalities. He received  a demand notice dated 29.7.2005 from the office of opposite party no.2 with the direction to deposit a sum of Rs.1414/-. When he went to the office of opposite party no.2 for depositing the said amount, the concerned official refused to receive the amount. However, he was assured by the officials of the opposite parties that his connection would be restored shortly. Thereafter, estimate for independent transformer was approved by the opposite parties and he deposited an amount of Rs.29,407/- on dated 3.11.2008 and then his connection was restored from new transformer under the Waiver Scheme. On 29.1.2010 he received bill for an amount of Rs.85210/-, wherein an amount of Rs.80767/- was  shown as “sundry charges” without given any detail. The said bill was issued regarding consumption from 2.12.2009 to 23.12.2009 for 700 units, on average basis. He immediately contacted the office of opposite party no.2 to know the details of the alleged amount of “sundry charges”. He was told that the amount was charged as defaulting amount outstanding in his name and related to the period prior to 2005. The opposite parties had no right to recover the said defaulting amount as sundry charges in view of section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003. No notice was given to him before raising the demand of the said defaulting amount as sundry charges. In this way, there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, which caused him unnecessarily mental pain, agony and harassment.

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

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the electricity connection of the complainant was restored as per sales circular no.U-21/2005 and as per the said circular he was bound to pay 20 bills regularly with the Nigam but he after getting restored his connection did not bother to follow the terms and conditions of the Waiver Scheme of the Government due to which his connection was permanently disconnected. Therefore, Nigam was entitled to recover the entire previous balance as the complainant was not entitled to the Waiver Scheme of the Nigam. 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 to C13 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Gagan Pandey Ex.OPW/A and document Ex.OP1  have been tendered.

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

6.                Admittedly, the tubewell connection of the complainant was disconnected on account of non-payment of electricity charges. However, he applied for restoration of his connection under Waiver Scheme of the Nigam on 29.7.2005 alongwith test report dated 28.7.2005. He had deposited Rs.2020/-with the application. Initially, the estimate of Rs.1414/- was prepared, but lateron fresh estimate of Rs.29407/- for independent transformer was prepared, which was deposited by the complainant on 3.11.2008, as is evident from Ex.C12. Lateron, the opposite parties sent the bill dated 29.1.2010, the copy of which is Ex.C1, raising demand of Rs.80,767/- as “sundry charges”.

7.                As per pleadings of opposite parties the complainant was bound to pay 20 bills regularly after restoration of his connection under Waiver Scheme sale circular no.U-21/2005, but he did not pay 20 bills regularly. Therefore, he was liable to pay the defaulting amount, which was outstanding against him before restoration of the connection.

8.                The opposite parties had floated the Waiver Scheme under sales circular no.U-21/2005. Complainant had applied under the said scheme on 29.7.2005 alongwith test report. However, as per the Waiver Scheme his connection was not restored immediately after depositing the required amount, but the matter regarding restoration remained pending with the opposite parties. Lateron, he was directed to deposit Rs.29,407/- as per fresh estimate for independent transformer and he deposited that amount accordingly on 3.11.2008. The copy of letter Ex.C7 issued by Executive Engineer Sub urban Division II to Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division Assandh speaks volumes about the apathy of the officials of the Nigam towards agriculturists while implementing the waiver scheme. Executive Engineer put queries to Sub Divisional Officer and asked him to fix the responsibility of the concerned officials regarding delay in restoration of the connection of the complainant. Anyhow, the connection of the complainant was restored after 3.11.2008 under the same waiver scheme of 2005 under which he had applied for restoration. The complainant has alleged that he had paid the bills regularly after restoration of his connection. The opposite parties have not led any evidence worth the name, which may show that after restoration of the connection, which bill was not paid by the complainant. No notice to the complainant was issued raising demand from him about defaulting amount on account of not depositing 20 bills regularly. In the disputed bill, the amount of Rs.80,767/- was claimed as “sundry charges” and it was nowhere clarified as to under which sales circular the amount was demanded.

9.                During the course of arguments Shri Bhupinder Singh Sub Divisional Officer produced the copy of sales circular no.U-43/2008 also according to which the consumers were given last option to deposit their current outstanding energy bills by 31.01.2009 for availing the benefits of the waiver scheme under sale circular no.U-43/2008.  Neither it has been alleged nor there is any evidence of the opposite parties that the complainant had not deposited his current outstanding energy bills by 31.1.3009. In fact, the connection of the complainant was restored after 3.11.2008. It has not been clarified by the opposite parties as prior to 31.1.2009, which current energy bill was outstanding against the complainant so as to debar him from getting benefit of the waiver scheme. Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation in observing that the opposite parties have not been able to establish that the complainant did not comply with the condition of the waiver scheme and was not entitled to get benefit of the said scheme. Consequently, the demand raised by the opposite parties for defaulting amount of Rs.80,767/- prior to the waiver scheme of 2005 was not legally justified and the same amounted to deficiency in service.

10.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties not to effect the recovery of Rs.80767/- from the complainant as sundry charges mentioned in the disputed bill issued on 29.1.2010 and disconnect his electricity supply for recovery of the said amount. We further direct the opposite parties to  pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied by t he opposite parties 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: 29.4.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member