Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 110.
Instituted on : 01.03.2019.
Decided on : 07.12.2020.
Hardeep s/o sh. Pardeep R/o Dalal Compelx, Near Raj Motors, Subhash Nagar, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- SDO, UHBVNL, R-41-No.1, Rohtak city, near Power house, Rohtak.
- UHBVNL through Sub Divisional Officer, SDO No.1, Rohtak.
- Revenue Accountant, Incharge, SDO No.1, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.K.Hooda, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Pardeep Ahlawat, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is consumer of opposite party having electricity connection no.0626950000 installed at his building and he has given some portion of said premises on rent for earning his livelihood. The complainant is paying the bills regularly. On 09.02.2019 opposite parties sent a bill amounting to Rs.113945/- and he contacted the opposite parties and came to know about the internal audit report mentioned in Circular(Half Margin) no.40 dated 11.06.2018 and in that report it was mentioned that the meter was replaced by the opposite parties and that the base units low not chargeable and is out of order. It is also mentioned that the meter recorded the down fall consumption during the month of 10/13 to 08/14 as compared after the replacement of meter and the account was overhauled and an amount of Rs.104310/- was levied upon the complainant and was added in the current bill of the complainant. The assessment made by the officials and imposing of penalty is illegal, null & void and against the principle of natural justice. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to declare the alleged bill as illegal, not to recover the alleged amount of Rs.119119(including surcharge) and also to pay compensation of Rs.50000/- on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that in fact the account of the complainant was overhauled by Pvt. Audit vide HM(Sr.No.181). The said HM has returned by your office that the “base unit low not chargeable” is out of order. The meter recorded the downfall consumption during the month of 10/13 to 08/14(6 bills) on compared after the replacement of the meter. As such an amount of Rs.104310/- was added in the bill of the complainant to overhaul the account. The bill has been issued as per the consumption of the complainant and overhauling of the account as per rules made under Electricity Act and the complainant is liable to make the payment of bills. It is further submitted that the electricity connection is being used for commercial purpose. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. 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.C7 and has closed his evidence on dated 06.08.2019. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on dated 05.10.2020.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After perusal of document placed on record, we have observed that as per Half Margin report Ex.C5, account was overhauled by the opposite parties w.e.f. 10/2013 to 08/2014 and the notice was issued in the year 2018 and the amount was added in the bill Ex.C4 dated 08.02.2019. It is also observed that the account was overhauled by private audit party and not by Govt. authorized audit party. Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the case as the connection is for NDS nature and use of commercial purpose. But on the other hand, contention of complainant is that the connection is being used for earning his livelihood and as such no commercial purpose is involved. It is also observed that the respondent officials charged the alleged amount of Rs.104310/- from the complainant in the electricity bill dated 08.02.2019 i.e. after a gap of more than two years. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble National Commission in 2019(3) CLT 553 titled as Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. DAV Centenary Sr. Sec. School, whereby Hob’ble National commission has held that: “The electricity dues for the period prior to two years from the date of revised bill cannot be asked to be paid by the consumer”. Moreover we have also perused the half margin report. In this report detail of consumption from 07/2014 to 10/2015 has not been mentioned anywhere. Respondent has also not placed on record any consumption record for the period 10/2013 to 08/2014. Hence the same is not an authenticated document. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the demand of Rs.104310/- after two years is not maintainable.
6. As such, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties not to charge the alleged amount of Rs.104310/- or any surcharge, interest or penalty imposed upon this amount from the complainant. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied 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:
07.12.2020.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
…………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
