Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 596.
Instituted on : 16.10.2017.
Decided on : 28.08.2019.
Om Parkash age 74 years s/o Rampat R/o Shop no.16 Old Anaj Mandi, Sampla Tehsil Sampla Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Xen, UHBVNL, Rohtak, District Rohtak.
- S.D.O., UHBVN, Sampla, 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: Sh.Vijay Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Ajay Dua, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is having meter No.A564 in his name and till the month of March 2016, the bills pertaining to this connection were coming correctly but after that opposite parties started giving bills on average basis i.e. from April 2016 till now, which is not as per the usage of the complainant at a very high rate. That after March 2016 the respondent sent the bill of Rs.20126/-which was not as per the usage of complainant. The complainant visited SDO UHBVNL Sampla on 27.04.2016 and complained regarding the said bill and he was directed to meet C.A. That complainant met with the CA and he was directed to pay Rs.8000/- and was explained that the alleged bill had come due to the directions of Audit at UHBVNL Chandigarh. That complainant deposited the alleged amount of Rs.8000/- on dated 27.04.2016. But the complainant again received the bill of Rs.19216/- in the month of June 2016, for which complainant made repeated representations before the opposite parties and also filed an application under RTI but no information was supplied. That in the month of February 2016, opposite parties asked the complainant to deposit Rs.25000/- or otherwise threatened the complainant to uninstall the meter. On which, complainant deposited Rs.25000/- vide receipt no.60 dated 17.02.2017. That officials of the respondents also raided the shop of son of complainant and threatened to uninstall the meter of shop saying that his father is not paying the bill amount of meter no.A564. After which, complainant deposited Rs.10000/- on 08.04.2017. That despite repeated requests of the complainant, opposite party is sending the illegal bills to the complainant. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.35000/- deposited by the complainant as penalty and also to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment 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 meter of the complainant became faulty/stop in the month of July, 2012. Therefore, the bills were sent on average basis upto 20.05.2013. So as per MCO dated 15.05.2013, the meter was changed. From 20.07.2012 to 20.11.2013, the total units consumed by the complainant were 3265 and average of 2 months comes to 1088 units. During the period, when the meter remained faulty/stopped, the average charges of the electricity consumed demanded at that time was less and now the average comes to 1088 units for every two months. Hence there is difference between the amount earlier claimed and now claimed. It is correct that after March, 2016, the respondent sent the bill of Rs.20126/- which was correct because in this bill, the amount of electricity energy actually consumed in the month of April, 2016 of Rs.3324/- plus differences of unit consumed during the period of 20.07.2012 to 20.11.2013 amounting to Rs.16800/- as sundry charges. The complainant himself deposited Rs.8000/- as part payment vide receipt no.307 dated 27.04.2016. That bill was correctly issued and hence no correction was required to be made. That complainant deposited Rs.25000/- at his own as part payment whereas at that time, the complainant was liable to pay Rs.53236/-. An amount of Rs.10000/- was also deposited as part payment against bill of Rs.32263/-. Upto the month of October, 2017, an amount of Rs.49577/- is payable by the complainant. 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.C24 and has closed his evidence on 23.07.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and has closed his evidence on 05.12.2018.
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 complainant has submitted that the respondents have issued a bill of Rs.20126/- including sundry charges Rs.16800/- and prayed that the alleged bill and its surcharge be declared as illegal. Whereas as per reply filed by the opposite parties, the meter of the complainant became faulty/stop in the month of July, 2012. Therefore, the bills were sent on average basis upto 20.05.2013. During the period when the meter remained faulty/stopped, the average charges of the electricity consumed demanded at that time was less and now the average comes to 1088 units for every two months. Hence the respondent sent the bill of Rs.20126/- which was correct because in this bill, the amount of electricity energy actually consumed in the month of April, 2016 of Rs.3324/- plus differences of unit consumed during the period of 20.07.2012 to 20.11.2013 amounting to Rs.16800/- as sundry charges. The perusal of internal audit report Ex.R2 shows that the internal audit department prepared a half margin report , as per which, the auditor advised the department to charge for 1088 units per month amount of Rs.16800/- for a period of 10/12 to 4/13 from the complainant after due verification. As per the complainant, he had already deposited all the dues and the amount demanded by the respondent merely on the ground of audit observation is illegal and the respondent officials are not entitled to recover the amount.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that account of the complainant is overhauled for the period 20.07.2012 to 20.01.2013. After taking the base for the period 5/13, 7/13 and 8/13 and an amount of Rs.16800/- has been shown as outstanding as per half margin report Ex.R2. In this regard it is observed that the alleged arrear was for the period 2012-2013 and was imposed in the bill dated 11.04.2016 i.e. after 3 years. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the order dated 06.11.2015 of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula titled as UHBVN Vs. Ashok Kumar whereby it is held that: “In view of the provision contained in Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003, No sum could be recovered from the consumer after the period of two years from the date when it became due”, 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”.
7. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the amount is illegally imposed upon the complainant after two years. Hence the same is barred by law of limitation and opposite party is not entitled to recover the alleged amount or its surcharge from the complainant.
8. Accordingly we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to withdraw the amount of Rs.16800/- 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 and the amount deposited by the complainant vide order dated 17.10.2017 of this Forum. Hence it is directed that after overhauling the account of complainant, the amount, if any, shall be refunded by the opposite party along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.16.10.2017 till its realization and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
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:
28.08.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
