Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 139.

                                                          Instituted on     : 06.03.2017.

                                                          Decided on       : 21.01.2019.

Usha Vij(62 years) wife of Late Sh. Raj Kumar Vij, Resident of House No. 4, Bank Colony, Rohtak, now at present: 251 Summer Hill Drive, Thunder Bay, Ontario P7B7C4, Canada through her son & authorized person Mr. Pankaj Vij son of Sh. Raj Kumar Vij. M 9215811440.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

1.       Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (UHBVNL) Registered Office: C-16, Vidhut Sadan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its M.D.Service to be effected through SDO-R42 Sub-Divn. no.2, UHBVNL Circlc Rohtak.

2.       Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (UHBVNL), SDO-R42, Sub-Divn. No. 2, UHBVNL Circle, Rohtak.

……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. G.K. Lalit, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. K.K. Luthra, Advocate for opposite parties.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has filed the present complaint through her authorized person Mr. Pankaj Vij on the ground that complainant is having a domestic electricity connection bearing connection/meter No.2599070000 and old A/c No. 2241202URF161127, K No. R42R-F161  127X installed at Bank Colony, Rohtak for the last more than 15 years. She has been paying the bills regularly and well within time and there is no due against the complainant. That in the month of October, 2015 complainant approached the OPs with a request to provide another commercial electricity connection, the complainant wanted to convert her house partly in a P.G. Centre. The complainant was stunned down in the month of December, 2015 when she received a bill No. 259901130833 vide dated 12.12.2015 wherein the complainant was asked to pay Rs.97,089/- upto 29.12.2015 in which Rs. 90,889.58/- were demanded as arrears and sundry charges and Rs.16,559.70 as current cycle charges without taking any meter reading and without any proper calculation. That the complainant approached to the OPs and requested them to rectify the bill in question but the said officials of the OPs told the complainant that the OPs issued the said bill as commercial connection, whereas till then the complainant had not started any commercial activities in her premises. That the complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs vide registered post dated 02.04.2016 but to no effect. That complainant received a new bill for Rs.1,29,856/- out of which Rs.1,24,906.99/- was shown as sundry arrear charges. On enquiry the complainant came to know that the said amount is the same amount which was demanded earlier in December 2015 as mentioned above, for which legal notice and complaint was given. That there is a great deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that OPs may kindly be directed not to recover the impugned amount of Rs.1,29,856/- and its surcharge, interest, penalty etc., to declare the bill No. 8397983971 dated 10.02.2017 as null and void and to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation alongwith Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that the spot of the complainant was checked by the official of the OPs on 08.08.2015 and found that the complainant was using the electricity for commercial purpose i.e. the electricity was using for P.G. Girls Hostel whereas the electricity connection was issued for domestic purpose. LL-1 was prepared at site in the presence of Mr. Sandeep relative of the complainant. So, the action has been taken against the complainant as per the rule of the Nigam and commercial charges of electricity and penalty of Rs.62,995/- has been imposed on the complainant and the same is rightly added in the bill of the complainant. It is wrong that the complainant approached the OPs with a request to provide another commercial electricity connection or to rectify the bill. The bill has been rightly issued by the OPs and the complainant is liable to pay the same and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 15.08.2018. Ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R5 and closed his evidence on dated 31.05.2018.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          Through this complaint, the complainant has challenged two electricity bills firstly raised in the month of December 2015 whereby an amount of Rs.90879.58P were demanded on account of arrears and sundry charges and Rs.16559.70/- as current cycle charges,. In this way after making some adjustment the department demanded an amount of Rs.97079/- from the complainant on account of electricity usage charges. The complainant again challenged bill amounting to Rs.129856/- vide bill no.8397983971 dated 10.02.2017. As per the complainant, initially the amount was demanded in the month of December 2015 for Rs.97097/-, thereafter the same become Rs.129850/- in the month of February 2017 vide bill no.8397983971 and the complainant demanded to declare the same as illegal and prayed for directing the respondents not to recover the same from the complainant.

6.                          As per the written statement and affidavit filed by the respondent, the respondents’ officials took the plea that the complainant was using the electricity energy as commercial and she was running a PG Hostel in her premises. The respondent officials visited the spot on dated 08.08.2015 and found that the electricity was being used by the complainant in her PG Girls Hostel. So the sundry was prepared regarding this fact an amount of Rs.62995/- have been charged as per rules. Thereafter this amount was charged through the regular electricity bills.

7.                          We have also perused the documents placed on record by the complainant and respondents  As per document Ex.C1, the electricity bill dated 27.02.2017 has revealed that an amount of Rs.129856/- have been demanded by the respondent official and in this bill an amount of Rs.124906/- have been shown as arrear outstanding in the financial year. As per this bill i.e. Ex.C1 the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.4028/- on dated 12.01.2017. Electricity bill Ex.R3 was issued on dated 22.09.2017 and perusal of this bill shows that the respondent officials demanded an amount of Rs.126006/- from the complainant and the details of amount payable are as under : Current cycle charges as Rs.22981.06/-, Arrears/outstanding dues were Rs.32608.77/- and Sundry charges/allowances as Rs.93388/-. We have also perused the bill dated 10.02.2017 which is Ex.C1 as well as Ex.R5. Perusal of this bill itself shows that the respondent officials issued current cycle charges as Rs.4948.85/- and arrears/outstanding dues as Rs.124906.99/-. It has been also mentioned in this bill on the head of outstanding arrears for the financial year as Rs.124906.99/-. After considering all the facts and documents placed on record by both the parties, we came to the conclusion that the respondent officials merely placed on record a checking report, sundry charges sheet and three electricity bills on the file which are Ex.R1 to Ex.R5. The respondent officials only submitted the affidavit of SDO Sh.Jitender Kumar. The respondent officials have not mentioned even the name of the officials, who visited in the premises of the complainant on dated 08.08.2015. The name of the officials have not been mentioned in the written statement or in the affidavit. They have failed to place on record any affidavit of the official, who visited the premises of the complainant to prove that on dated 08.08.2015 the complainant was running the PG in her premises. Now we came to the conclusion that the respondent officials have wrongly charged an amount of Rs.62985/- as sundry charges from the complainant and they have no right to charge the same. Moreover the same has been charged after two years. Hence the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.

8.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the respondents shall not charge the amount of Rs.62295/- or penalty/surcharge and other charges accrued on Rs.62995/-  from the complainant. Opposite parties are further directed to only charge the consumption charges. It is made clear that if as per Ex.R3 the amount of the sundry charges becomes Rs.93388/- and if this amount pertains to the previous sundry charges they have charged in the year 2015, the same should not be charged. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant which shall be adjusted in the future bills of complainant. Complaint is partly allowed accordingly.

9.                         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:

21.01.2019.

                                                         ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.