Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 451.
Instituted on : 01.10.2015.
Decided on : 14.09.2016.
Dalbir Singh s/o Sh. Ramanand R/o village Kanheli, Teh. & Distt. Rohtak at present B-232, Preet Vihar Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- S.D.O. (Op.) Sub Division No.2, Rohtak.
- UHBVN Ltd., through its Superintending Engineer UHBVN Ltd., Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Shakti Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Ajay Dua, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that complainant has an electricity connection bearing no.KL-155 at his house from the electricity department. It is averred that the said connection was not in use from April 2009 till today and no unit was consumed by the complainant and as such no bill was received by the complainant from the opposite parties. It is averred that a bill dated 19.06.2015 amounting to Rs.16918/- was received by the complainant issued by the opposite party, whereas the complainant had got disconnected his connection before leaving the house at village and also cleared his all dues/bill. It is averred that complainant requested the opposite parties to check their record about his previous electricity connection No.KL-155 but the opposite party flatly refused to check their record and asked the complainant to clear the bill issued by the opposite party. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to withdraw the impugned bill and declared it as null and void and opposite parties may also be restrain to recover the alleged amount from the complainant.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that it is incorrect and denied that the electricity connection of the complainant was not used from April 2009 till today and no unit was consumed by the complainant since April 2009 till today. It is averred that the opposite party had issued bill regularly to complainant but the complainant intentionally did not pay the due amount and till date an amount of Rs.23916/- as on 06/14 is pending against the complainant. It is averred that the meter of the complainant was permanently disconnected vide PDCO/36/774/14. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A & Ex.PW1/B and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that opposite parties have issued a bill Ex.PW1/B whereby an amount of Rs.16918/- has been shown for the period 04/2009 to 08/2014. The contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that no unit was consumed by the complainant from April 2009 to till today and as such no bill was received by the complainant from the opposite parties and he is not liable to pay the alleged illegal bill issued by the opposite parties. It is further contended that no show cause notice was ever served upon the complainant before imposing the alleged amount. On the other hand contention of ld. counsel for the opposite party is that opposite party had issued bill regularly to complainant but the complainant intentionally did not pay the due amount till date and an amount of Rs.23916/- as on 06/14 is pending against the complainant and the meter of the complainant was permanently disconnected vide PDCO/36/774/14.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that opposite parties have not placed on record any bill to prove that regular bills were issued to the complainant and he had not paid the same. It is also observed that as per record of the opposite party Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 i.e. bill detail of complainant, there was no consumption since 04/2009 to 06/2014 and the bill has been issued for Rs.16918/- in the year 2015 i.e. after more than two years and hence is barred by law of limitation. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the order dated 22.03.2016 of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula titled UHBVN Vs. Ashok Kumar whereby it is held that: “No sum can be recovered from the consumer after the period of two years from the date when it becomes due”, as per 2014(1)CLT 419 titled Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kushal Pal Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula has held that: “Electricity consumption charges beyond a period of two years not recoverable in view of section 56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act and became time barred”, as per 2013(4) 247 titled as Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Rajinder Kumar Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that: “Surcharge due, claimed in the year 2000 which pertained to the period 21.10.1992 to 10.12.1994-Held, claim for outstanding dues barred by the law of limitation” and as per 2016(2)CLT 430 titled as Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Vs. Dinesh Sharma Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Sundry charges added in electricity bill of complainant-Held-No show cause notice issued to the complainant before imposing penalty-O.Ps have miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was ever served upon the complainant-In this way they did not act as per provisions contained in the Electricity Act and it is deficiency in service”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that imposing of alleged amount of Rs.16918/- upon the complainant by the opposite parties is illegal and against the natural justice.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the amount of Rs.16918/- imposed upon the complainant by the opposite parties is hereby quashed and opposite parties shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of the order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
14.09.2016
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member
