Haryana

Panchkula

CC/286/2020

DR.RAVINDER BAHL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR.

21 Jun 2022

ORDER

 

Before the District Consumer, Dispute Redressal, commission, Panchkula.

Consumer Complaint No.	:	286 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	21.09.2020
Date of Decision	:	21.06.2022

 

Dr. Ravinder Bahl son of Late Sh. Prem Singh Bahl, aged about 68 years, r/o H.No.607, Sector-12-A, Panchkula.                                                                                                                            …….Complainant

                                                Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Industrial Area Phase-II, Panchkula, Haryana through its SDO.

….. Opposite Party

Complaint under SecTION 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.  

                        Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

                        Dr. Sushma Garg, Member

 

                       

For the Parties:   Sh.Jospeh K. Masih, Authorised representative of the                        complainant. 

                        Sh. Y.P Rana, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

Order   

(SATPAL, president)

 1.            Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant got one domestic electricity connection in his name in the year 1997, initially, vide account no.2113602UPS131200 and thereafter, vide account no.3710340000. It is alleged that the OP raised the electricity bills as per consumption, which were paid regularly without any default; details of Electric consumption bills from Jan. 2019 to May 2020 are mentioned in para no.2 of the complaint; due to COVID-19 Pandemic Electricity consumption bill was not raised by the OP; the complainant visited to the office of the OP to enquire about the outstanding bill and to utter shock the bill amounting to Rs.2,50,101.92 was raised for which the last date of  deposit was 21.08.2020; the complainant inquired from the concerned Accounts Officer about the enormous exaggerated electric consumption bills, who intimated that there was previous outstanding arrears amounting to Rs.2,50,101.92; the complainant requested to provide the documents with regard to previous outstanding bill/amount; but the same were not provided to him; thereafter, a letter dated 19.08.2020  was submitted by the complainant in the office of OP with the request to correct the electricity bill but all in vain. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 19.08.2020 under protest. Alleging lapses and deficiencies, the present complaint has been filed seeking the correction in the bill dated 14.08.2020 along with compensation. Due to the act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered financial loss, mental agony and harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, the  OP appeared through its counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous; no locus standi; not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. On merits, it is stated that the complainant was making the payment of the bill regularly; however as per the record of the OP, the meter of the complainant was defective from 10.02.2015 to 07.06.2016 and due to this reason, the electricity meter used to show the meter reading up and down and hence, as per the units consumed by the complainant and as shown in the meter, the OP used to send the bills to the complainant of the consumed units. It is averred that as per the report of the meter reader, the OP had changed the defective meter with new one at meter reading “07” on 16.10.2016 and the OP used to issue the electricity bills as per the reading of the electric meter. It is further averred that the audit of the account was conducted for the year 4/2015 to 9/2017 and was over hauled as per Sales Circular no.U’/2015 and 25/16 wherein the meter readings/units for the period of four months i.e. from 05.04.2017 to 24.08.2017 being the highest of the bills as per the rules of the Nigam was taken as base; the said audit was conducted in the year 2020 and the said units were taken for the period from 05.04.2017 to 24.08.2017 as per the rules of the Nigam and hence the department had charges an amount of Rs.2,26,487/- as per Audit observation in the bill issued in the month of August, 2020, which the complainant has to pay to the department. It is averred that the complainant had also deposited part payment of Rs.78,398/- on 20.08.2020 and further, deposited  Rs.3,601/-  on 05.02.2021 and as per the account of the OP an amount of Rs. 1,65,892/- is still due towards the complainant. It is denied that any application was moved by the complainant to correct the bill as alleged; hence, there is no deficiency on the part of OP and thus, it is prayed that the complaint is liable to the dismissed.

3.             The Authorised representative of the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-14 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops tendered affidavit as Annexure R-A along with documents Annexure R-1 to R-3 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the entire record available on record including the written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             Admittedly, the complainant was making the payment of electrical charges till the demand of Rs.2,54,623/- was raised by the OP vide bill dated 14.08.2020(Annexure C-10). The complainant has disputed the legality and validity of the said bill on the ground that the demand of Rs.2,50,101.92 raised vide said bill dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure C-10)  was time barred as well as against the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. The learned counsel for the complainant inviting our attention towards the various bills, which are available on record as Annexure C-1 to C-8 contended that no arrear was shown by the OP prior to the disputed bill dated 14.08.2020(Annexure C-10). The learned counsel contended that the demand of OP amounting to Rs.2,50,101.92 on account of Audit made in the year 2020 for the year 2016 is not recoverable as per settled law. Reliance has been placed upon the following case laws:-

        i.      Municipal Committee Vs. Jaswant Rai and Ors. decided on 22.03.1990                       (P&H High Court) Equivalent citations:(1990) 98         PLR 402.

          ii.       Ujjal Singh Lamba & Others Vs. State of Punjab and others in C.W.P.                        No.3010/2014 decided on 29.1.2015((P&H High Court)

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP, while controverting the assertions and contentions of the complainant, reiterated the averments made in the written statement that the meter of the complainant was defective from 10.02.2015 to 07.06.2016 and thus, the complainant is liable to make the payment as per consumption made by him. It is contended that the audit of the account of the complainant was made for the period w.e.f. 4/2015 to 9/2017 and the account of the complainant was overhauled as per Sales Circular No.U/5/2014 and 25/16 and after over hauling the account of the complainant, the audit party as per the audit observation had taken the meter readings/units for the period of four months i.e. from 05.04.2017 to 24.08.2017 being the highest base of the bills as per the rules of the Nigam. It is contended that the act of the OP raising the disputed demand on the basis of audit observation is legal, valid and justified as the same is based on the basis of the relevant rules applicable in the matter.

7.             After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on record, it is an admitted factual position that the complainant had been making the payment of electrical charges regularly, without any default, till the issuance of bill dated 14.08.2020(Annexure C-10) wherein a sum of Rs. 2,50,101.92 was raised as arrears. The OP has justified the said demand on the basis of report of audit, which was conducted in the year 2020 for the period from 4/15 to 9/17.

                As per rival contentions of the parties, the  sole question for adjudication in the present complaint, is, whether the demand raised vide bill dated 14.08.2020(Annexure C-10) for a sum of Rs.2,50,101.92 under the head of the arrears is recoverable  in view of the provisions contained in the Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, which provides as under:-

“No sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when the sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges of electricity”.

 

The above provision makes it clear beyond any doubt that no sum due from any consumer is recoverable after the expiry of two years from the date when it first became due unless the demand is being raised continuously. In the present case, the meter was defective w.e.f. 10.02.2015 to 07.06.2016, whereas the demand has been raised first time vide bill dated 14.08.2020(Annexure C-10) i.e. after the expiry of two years. Thus, the demand raised vide said bill is not recoverable being in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act.

Apart from above, it would be relevant to mention here that the plea taken by the OP that the demand has been raised on account of overhauling of the audit party is nowhere proved on the file by any cogent evidence. The OP is/was under legal obligation to prove its version by cogent evidence i.e. by providing the complete documentary evidence but in the present case, the OP has neither placed any report of audit party nor any half margin vide which it could be clear that the account of the complainant was audited by the audit party in any manner.Further, the alleged audit report(Annexure R-3) neither bears the signatures of anyofficial nor does it shows the designation and status of the officials comprising the audit party. Moreover, the complainant was not associated or heard during the audit made by the audit party. Furthermore, no show cause notice asking the complainant to make the payment on the basis of audit report was ever issued by the OP. Therefore, the demand raised by the OP vide bill dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure C-10) on the basis of overhauling of the account of the complainant is not legal, valid or justified.

8.             In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of considered view that the demand raised vide bill dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure C-10) for a sum of Rs.2,50,101.92 is liable to be quashed being invalid and illegal and thus, the same is hereby quashed. Further, the OP is liable to compensate the complainant for its deficient services rendered to him.

9.  
10.  

Announced on:21.06.2022

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal          

            Member                       Member                               President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          Satpal                              

 President