Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 603
Instituted on : 10.12.2018
Decided on : 03.05.2023.
Surjit Singh age 43 years, son of Sh. Krishan Singh Hooda r/o near HUDA City Park, New Bus Stand Rohtak. (Haryana).
...........Complainant.
Vs.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Panchkula through its Managing Director.
- Executing Engineer, City Operation Division, UHBVN Rohtak.
- S.D.O. Op. Sub Division no.1., UHBVN Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.K.L.Mehta , Advocate for the complainant.
Smt.Manita SDO for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that he is owner of a plot in which a room has been constructed and an electricity connection bearing A/c No.C542-0753 new no.JR-123-0118 has been installed which is NDS category with sanctioned load of 0.800KW. The complainant has been regularly paying the bills of electricity energy consumed and never defaulted in paying the same. The opposite parties have raised a demand of Rs.268618/- on account of alleged half margin vide letter no.4300/91 charged vide sundry item no.40/378. The said amount was claimed on account of alleged difference in the bills during the year 2011-12. The alleged demand of the opposite parties is illegal as there is only one room in the said premises and the same was lying vacant during the aid period and no energy was being consumed there. It is submitted that the alleged demand of the opposite parties is highly time barred. The opposite parties have claimed the alleged amount for the year 2011 and 2012. As per instructions of the Nigam and as per law, the opposite parties have no right to claim any amount for the last more than 2 years. The complainant approached the opposite parties and requested them to withdraw the aforesaid illegal demand of half margin but the opposite parties threatened to disconnect the electricity connection in case of non payment of bill. As Such the complainant deposited the said amount of Rs.268618/- under protest on 20.07.2018. The complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the above said amount but to no effect. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.268618/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till its payment and also to pay rs.50000/- as mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the electricity meter of the complainant had become defective and the same was replaced but the earlier bills were issued on average basis whereas the new meter recorded higher consumption as such a demand of Rs.268618/- on account of half margin vide sundry item No.40/378 was added in the bill issued to the complainant on account of difference between the bills issued on average basis and actual consumption. The electricity bill is being issued as per the consumption of the complainant as per rules made under Electricity Act and he is liable to make the payment of bills of electricity. On merits, it is submitted that complainant is liable to make the payment of bill of electricity. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and they prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, and document Ex.C1 to Ex. C7 and has closed his evidence on 03.12.2019. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties made a statement that reply already filed on behalf of opposite parties be read in evidence and closed his evidence on 14.01.2020.
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 opposite parties have raised a demand of Rs.268618/- on account of half margin vide letter no.4300/91 charged vide sundry item no.40/378 placed on record as Ex.C1. The said amount was claimed on account of alleged difference in the bills during the year 2011-14. As per electricity act, the demand after 2 years is wrong. The amount became due in 2014 as the account overhauled upto 2014. They can take the amount upto 2016 but the demand has been made in the year 2018 for the period 2011-2014, the same is illegal. In this regard Hon’ble National Commission in 2019(3) CLT 553 titled as Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. DAV Centenary Sr. Sec. School, 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”. As per order dated 06.11.2015 titled as UHBVN Vs. Ashok Kumar Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula has 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”. The law cited above are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, as per sale circular of the opposite party the demand should be made after considering 2 bi-monthly bills but in the present case the same has been made after considering 3 bi-monthly bills, which is illegal. Complainant has also placed on record report made by the ALM of the department on the application Ex..C3 of the complainant. As per this report the alleged plot was lying vacant and only a small room was constructed in the premises prior to 2014. The department should consider the report of their ALM and properly overhaul the account but in the present case illegal act has been made by the department. Hence the demand made by the opposite party amounting to Rs.268218/- is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is also observed that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.268218/- under protest, hence the opposite parties are liable to refund the same to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.268218/-(Rupees two lac sixty eight thousand two hundred and eighteen only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 10.12.2018 till its realisation to the complainant. Opposite parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/- 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:
03.05.2023
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
