Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 38.
Instituted on : 30.01.2018.
Decided on : 19.06.2019.
Ajay age 32 years, s/o Sh. Dalbir Singh, residents of village Ladhot Teh. and District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Rohtak through its Executive Engineer, Division, Rohtak.
- Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division No.2, U.H.B.V.N.Ltd., Bhalaut District Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER
Present: Ms. Sarita Ahlawat, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Pardeep Ahlawat, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant was in need of electricity connection but there was no transformer near the house of the complainant and the respondents suggested the complainant that if the complainant took three electricity connections of 2 KV each separately then a transformer will be installed by the respondent Department separately and the same was to be installed without any charges from the complainant. Then on the suggestion of the respondents, the complainant took the electricity connections from the respondents bearing no.R21ADH200859L in his name and also taken two other connections. Thereafter, the respondents are sending the electricity bills as per the consumptions to the complainant. That respondent also gave the connections to the other people from the above mentioned transformer. That after about three years, the respondents are demanding Rs.131000/- as charges of transformer including service tax, rent, labour charges and installation charges and the respondent sent bill amounting to Rs.21554/- as part payment mentioned in demand letter as miscellaneous charges. That complainant requested the respondents many a times not to demand this illegal amount from the complainant but to no effect. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such, it is prayed that the demand of Rs.131000/- be declared illegal and opposite parties be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and agony and to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties who appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the complainant was rightly served with the electricity bills as per rules made under Electricity Act. In fact, the complainant had applied for electricity connection and it was made clear to him that service rent and installation charges as per rules made under Electricity Act are to be paid by him for the installation of transformer. As such connection was released vide SCO No.83/370 dated 20.02.2015. That as per estimate, service rent is chargeable @ Rs.1534/- per month as per rules but the complainant has not paid the above said charges w.e.f. June 2015 to June 2016, as such he was liable to make the payment of alleged charges and the service rent from June 2015 to June 2016 has been calculated to be Rs.19942/- and the same has been included in the electricity bill of the complainant. That he is liable to make the payment of the service charges and charges for consumption of electricity as per rules. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence on 05.02.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and has closed his evidence on 20.05.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties, it is observed that as per his complaint, complainant has submitted that the respondents have issued a bill of Rs.131000/- and prayed that the alleged bill be declared as illegal. Whereas as per reply filed by the opposite parties, an amount of Rs.19942/- has been imposed upon the complainant on account of service rent from June 2015 to June 2016. The perusal of internal audit report Ex.C2/Ex.R1 shows that the internal audit department prepared a half margin report on dated 08.07.2016. As per this report, the auditor advised the department to charge an amount of Rs.1534/- per month for a period of 06/15 to 06/16 i.e. for 13 months from the complainant after due verification. Meaning thereby, the department should verify whether the complainant had already paid this amount or not. The respondent officials failed to provide any document to prove that they had verified this fact from the record of the department that complainant had not paid service rent charges. The respondent also failed to prove that whether this amount was chargeable from the complainant or not? As per the complainant, he had already deposited all the dues and the amount demanded by the respondent for the installation of the electricity connection in the premises of the complainant. Merely on the ground of half margin report, the respondent officials are not entitled to recover the amount because the audit party had advised that this fact should be verified by the department. The department has not placed on record any document to prove that they have verified the same from their record and an amount of Rs.19942/- are still outstanding against the complainant. They merely believed the half margin report and thereafter not verified the same. The respondent officials have not placed on record any document to prove that the complainant had not deposited the amount for installation of electricity connection in his premises. The respondents also failed to prove that department is legally entitled to recover the service rent from the complainant. No such sale circular or office order has been placed on record by the respondents.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to withdraw the amount of Rs.19942/- from the bill of complainant and not to charge any interest, surcharge or penalty on the alleged amount and to overhaul the account of complainant after deducting this amount. Respondents are further directed to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant and to comply with the order within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.06.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
