Haryana

Karnal

CC/488/2020

Des Raj Sachdeva - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Amit Sachdeva

23 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 488 of 2020

                                                          Date of instt.05.11.2020

                                                          Date of Decision 23.11.2022

 

Des Raj Sachdeva son of late Shri Thakur Dass, resident of house no.20 Bank Colony Karnal age 71 years. Mobile no.9254122907.

 

                                                                         …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Division-City Karnal, Circle-Karnal having its office at sector-12, Karnal, through its SDO, City Division.

 

                                                                    …..Opposite Party.

 

      Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present: Shri Amit Sachdeva, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Bhanu Partap Singh, counsel for the OP.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is consumer of OP since the year 2010-2011 and was having electricity connection in his name account no.8018120000. The said electricity connection was for the shop/booth no.57 Mugal Canal Karnal only for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of the use of shop and electricity was used for such as for fan, AC and light etc and not for any commercial use. Due to some unavoidable circumstances, the bill issued for the month of 2018 vide bill no.801811444402 was for Rs.13,724/- for the reading till date 06.11.2018, vide bill dated 12.11.2018 was not paid by the complainant. After one month on 26.12.2018, complainant paid the said bill alongwith late fee total amounting to Rs.14127/-. Complainant closed the shop due to non-use, complainant was unaware about the supply of electricity. In the month of May, 2019 i.e. after a period of approximately eight months, complainant reopened the shop and was found that the electricity connection was disconnected. The complainant approached the OP and enquired about the non-supply of electricity and moved an application to OP on 14.05.2019 to issue the bill for the said electricity connection on reading basis and to connect the electricity supply. The OP appointed the JE Mr. Ram Singh to check and report the status of electricity supply and meter working. The said JE inspected the site and prepared a report of “Meter not at site” and also mentioned in the report “As per record of CA-104 (18-19) meter was affected PDCO vide PDCO no.76/21. After knowing about the disconnection of electricity since 24.12.2018, complainant shocked to know that only for non-payment of Rs.13724/- connection has been disconnected since 24.12.2018. The complainant met with CA of OP and requested for reconnection of the electricity connection. CA told that the reconnection can be done only within a period of 3 months from date of disconnection and now a period of approximately six months has been passed after disconnection, so only a new connection can be provided on payment of total outstanding bill of old connection. As the electricity is a basic necessary, complainant requested to provide total outstanding bill for Rs.2304/- till date and complainant paid the same on 16.05.2019. After clearing all the dues for the old connection no.8018120000/-, complainant applied for a new connection for his shop i.e. for booth no.57 (ground floor) Mugal canal market, Karnal. The said application for reconnection was moved on 05.08.2019, vide registration no.L-13-819-67 alongwith required documents alongwith proof of receipt of payment of all dues paid for old connection. After check and being fully satisfied, the application was accepted by the OP and a new connection no.7988600564 was provided and the new connection was installed. After that complainant is paying all the bills for new connection and there is no due pending for the said new connection. In the month of September, 2020 some officials of OP came to the shop of complainant and asked to pay the electricity bill for the connection no.8018120000 and showed a bill of Rs.28352/- dated 07.09.2020. The complainant shocked on the said said bill whereas he has already been disconnected the said connection since 24.12.2018. The official of the OP threatened the complainant that in case of non payment, they will disconnect the electricity supply for new connection. Complainant moved an application dated 24.09.2020 to OP and requested to withdraw the said illegal bill for old connection but till date OP did not do so. On 02.22.2020, official of the OP again came to the shop of complainant and asked for payment of electricity for the old connection. Complainant again told the OP that there is no connection/supply for the said connection no.8018120000 since December 2018 but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Due to this act and conduct of the OP, complainant is shocked and is in mental trauma and fear of disconnection of new electricity connection. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the bill in question has been sent to the complainant after overhauling his account and that amount is regarding the actual consumption and as such the complaint of the complainant is based upon false and baseless facts. It is further pleaded that the meter of the complainant bearing account no.8018120000 of NDS having load 4.90 KW (old account no.SD-32/1983) was PDCO on 24.12.2018 vide PDCO no.76/21 on FR-1664 but the billing of the consumer of this account have not stopped, when the matter came in noticed the account of the consumer was overhauled on 17.02.2021 after PDCO dated 24.12.2018 after generate the bills and found amount with surcharge w.e.f.24.12.2018 to 11/2020 Rs.25553/-only adjustable and the advice for the same has been sent to back office for adjust/refund in the account of the consumer on dated 17.02.2021 in future bills and billing of said account will be stopped as per Nigam instructions. It is further pleaded that the new connection was applied by the complainant, vide application no.L-13-819-67 on 05.08.2019, which was also released by the OP, vide account no.7988600564. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill dated 12.11.2018 and 08.03.2019 Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, copy of application dated 14.05.2019 Ex.C3, copy of receipt of payment of bill dated 16.05.2019 Ex.C4, copy of payment for new connection dated 22.09.2022 Ex.C5, copy of bill dated 24.09.2020 Ex.C6, copy of application dated 24.09.2020 Ex.C7, copy of application for new connection Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 07.09.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vinay Kumar AE Ex.OP1/A, copy of site verification report Ex.OP1, copy of PDCO no.76/21 Ex.OP2, copy of activity information Ex.OP3 and Ex.OP4, copy of electricity bills dated 07.05.2022  and 04.1.2020  Ex.OP5 and Ex.OP6, copy of activity information Ex.OP7, copy of display bill Ex.OP8, copy of financial information Ex.OP9, copy of electricity bill dated 30.10.2020 and closed the evidence on 10.6.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Admittedly, initially complainant was having an electricity connection no.8018120000 since 2010.

8.             As per version of the complainant bill amounting to Rs.13724/- issued by the OP for the month of December, 2018 was not paid due to some unavoidable circumstances and lateron complainant paid the said bill with late fees of Rs.14,127/- dated 26.12.2018. Therefore, the shop of the complainant remained closed for a period of six months and electricity connection was disconnected by the OP. On enquiry it was transpired that the electricity connection has been disconnected for not depositing the bill whereas the complainant has already cleared the bills. Therefore, complainant applied for new connection and requested to the OP to provide total outstanding bill amount of the old connection. OP issued outstanding bills of Rs.2304/- and same has been paid by complainant on 16.05.2019, vide receipt Ex.C4 and OP has issued new electricity connection no.7988600564 and complainant has been paying the regular bills. The complainant has challenged the bill issued by OP on the old account no.8018120000.

9.             As per the version of the OP, the old account of the complainant was PDCO on 24.12.2018 but the billing of this account has not stopped. When the matter came in the notice that the account of complainant was overhauled on dated 17.02.2021 after PDCO dated 24.12.2018 generating after the bills and found amount with surcharge w.e.f. 24.12.2018 to 11/2020 Rs.25553/-only adjustable and the advice for the same has been sent to back office for adjust/refund in the account of the consumer on dated 17.02.2021 in future bills and billing of said account will be stopped as per Nigam instructions.

10.           The OP has taken a plea that the connection of the complainant was a commercial connection and he does not come under the definition of consumer as per Consumer Protection Act. The onus to prove its version lies upon the OP but OP has miserably failed to prove its version by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Rather, complainant in his complaint has specifically mentioned that the electricity connection was being used by him for earning his livelihood. In this regard we are relying upon the authority case titled as M/s Prabhu Dayal Trilok Chand Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr. in consumer case no.908 of 2016 decided on 24.05.2022 of Hon’ble National Commission in which Hon’ble National Commission held that   

“A contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and, therefore, there is no question of commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage. The complainant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable”.

Further in M/s Paramount Digital Color Lab and Ors etc. Versus M/s Agfa India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. etc. in civil appeal nos. 2109-2110 of 2018 decided on 15.02.2018 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

“if person purchases goods for commercial purpose and such commercial purpose is for earning livelihood by means of self employment-Such person will come within definition of consumer-Appellant purchased machine for self employment- Quality of ultimate production of machine depends upon skill of person who uses machine-In case of exigencies, if person trains another person to operate machine so as to produce final product based on skill and effort in matter of photography and development, same cannot take such person out of definition of consumer”.

                  In view of the ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the case, the present complaint is maintainable before this Commission.  

11.           It has been proved on record that prior to disconnection of old connection, complainant has cleared all bills. Complainant has also get a new connection and paying the bills regularly. This fact has not been denied by the OP. Complainant has already cleared all the electricity bills with regard to old connection in the year 2018 but OP after releasing the new connection had issued the bills on the account of old connection. The new connection can be issued on clearance of old connection dues. But OP had issued the electricity bill on the old account which has already been cleared by complainant. This act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and complainant being harassed by OP by issuing the old connection bill after clearance of the same.

12.           In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP not to charge any bill with regard to old connection bearing no.801812000 and to close the said account. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 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.

Dated:23.11.2022                                                                     

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                           Member                          Member