Haryana

Karnal

807/2011

Surya Kant Sharma S/o Bhim Sain Vinodi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. Bhargava

21 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 807 of 2011

                                                             Date of instt. 21.11.2011

                                                               Date of decision:19.12.2016

 

Surya Kant Sharma son of Shri Bhim Sain Vinodi resident of House no.682, sector-13 Extension, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sector-6, Shakti Bhwan, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

2. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Division City, Karnal through its Sub Divisional Officer.

 

                                                                                 …………Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri S.K. Bhargava Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri C.R.Chauhan Advocate for opposite parties.

                                                        

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he is having electric connection bearing account no.LA30-3430-W at his residence regarding which he had paid all the electricity bills. His meter became defective in the month of December 2004 regarding which he informed the opposite parties. The meter was charged by the opposite parties in the month of April, 2005. After replacement of the meter, he was paying the bills regularly. However, opposite parties issued bill for the month of June, 2007 on 17.7.2007 for Rs.8279/- in respect of the period of 23.5.2007 to 23.6.2007 i.e. current bill of Rs.4008/- and arrears of Rs.4271/-. He contacted the opposite parties a number of times, but there was no fruitful result. He deposited the current bill of Rs.4008/-. Thereafter, opposite parties issued another bill for the month of December, 2007 dated 17.9.2007 for an amount of Rs.10,883/- i.e. current bill of Rs.2877/- and arrears of Rs.8006/-. In fact, he had paid all the bills for the months of January to May 2007, but the opposite parties did  not pay any heed to his request for correcting the bills. He approached Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum of opposite parties at Panchkula by way of representation and submitted all the documents. Initially, he appeared before the said Forum 2/3 times, but he was Manager in State Bank of India, Rohtak, therefore, it was very difficult to appear on each and every hearing. Therefore, vide letter dated 7.7.2008, he informed the said Forum that he was unable to appear on each and every date of hearing and requested that the complaint be decided in view of the documents placed on the record. His complaint was dismissed, vide order dated 14.1.2011, on the ground that he had not come forward to argue the case. The bills dated 17.7.2007 and 17.9.2007 and order dated 14.1.2011 are illegal, null, void, ineffective and not binding upon his rights on the grounds that the opposite parties demanded the amount pertaining December 2004 to March 2005 in the month of July, 2007 i.e. after a gap of two years, whereas such amount could not be demanded after expiry of two years from the date when the same fell due, in view of Section 56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act 2003; that the opposite parties calculated the bills on average for the months of December 2005 to April 2006 i.e. 515 units for December 2005 and January 2006; 457 units for February and March, 2006; 485 units for the months of  April and May 2006, whereas he had paid the bills much more than that 600 units on average basis for the months of December, 2004 to April 2005 on average basis i.e. 300 units per month; and that no hearing opportunity afforded to him by opposite parties before raising the demand of disputed bills. In this way the acts and conduct of the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service which caused him mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and that this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant is habitual of filing the complaints against the opposite parties without any cogent reason. He filed application before higher authorities of the opposite parties, but never came present to prove his motive/claim. The complainant only wanted to humiliate the opposite parties due to some personal grudge. The objections raised by the complainant had been solved by the opposite parties. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex. C2 to C22 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties affidavit of S.P.Chandra Sub Divisional Officer Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 have   been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances  of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                It is not in dispute that the complainant is having electric connection bearing account no.LS30-3430-W at his residence. Thus, he is consumer of the opposite parties. As per the case of the complainant his meter became defective in December, 2004 regarding which he made complaint to the opposite parties and the defective meter was changed by the opposite parties in April, 2005. He had been paying the bills regularly. However, opposite parties issued the bill on 17.7.2007 for an amount of Rs.8279/- for the period of 25.3.2007 to 23.6.2007 i.e. current bill of Rs.4008/- and arrears of Rs.4271/-. He lodged protest, but to no effect. Therefore, he deposited the current bill of Rs.4008/- only. Again the opposite parties sent bill on 17.9.2007 for total amount of Rs.10833/- i.e. current bill of Rs.2877/- and arrears of Rs.8006/-. It has further been alleged that opposite parties did not pay any heed to his requests for correcting the bill. He approached Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, of the opposite parties at Panchkula, but his complaint was dismissed on 14.1.2011 on the ground that he was unable to appear on each and every date of hearing. He has raised dispute regarding the bills dated 17.7.2008 and 17.9.2007 and the order dated 14.1.2011.

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties pointed out that the complainant had filed complaint before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Panchkula on 7.4.2008 and that complaint was decided, vide order dated 18.8.2008, the copy of which is Ex.R1. The case file and documents produced as evidence were perused and on the basis of the statement of Assistant Executive Engineer Sub Urban Sub Division UHBVNL Karnal it was ordered “To render revised bill to the consumer account number LS30-3430-W with adjustment/refund of Rs.3249.” However, the complainant again filed complaint before Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum on 12.7.2010 regarding consumer dispute which was already decided on 18.8.2008. Learned counsel for opposite parties put thrust upon the contention that the cause of action to the complainant for filing the complaint accrued firstly on 17.7.2007 and then again on 17.9.2007 when the disputed bills were issued by the opposite parties and lastly on 18.8.2008 when the dispute raised by him was disposed of by Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum of the opposite parties at Panchkula. He could file complaint within two years after order dated 18.8.2008, but the present complaint was filed on 21.11.2011, therefore, the complaint is not within limitation and as such liable to be dismissed this score alone.

9.                To wriggle out the aforesaid contention learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the order dated 18.8.2008 was passed behind his back and the entire relevant record was not taken into consideration, therefore, the complainant again approached the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum Panchkula by moving complaint dated 12.7.2010. He had already expressed his inability to appear before the said Forum due to exigencies of his services, as he was posted Manager in State Bank of India Rohtak, but despite that his complaint was illegally dismissed on 14.1.2011, therefore, the cause of action lastly accrued to him on 14.1.2011 and thus the complaint filed on 21.11.2011 is well within limitation.

10.              The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant is bereft of merits and as such cannot be accepted. When the dispute regarding the bills dated 17.7.2007 and 17.7.2009 was decided by Consumer Grievances  Redressal Forum Panchkula, vide order dated 18.8.2008, the complainant had no right to agitate the same matter again with the same Forum by filing fresh complaint on 12.7.2010. The said Forum, vide order dated 18.8.2008 ordered adjustment/refund of Rs.3249 in the account of the complainant. If, the complainant was not satisfied with the said order, he could challenge the order before this Forum or any other competent Forum in accordance with the provisions of law, but the same matter could not be agitated by him again before the same Forum by filing fresh complaint. Learned counsel for the complainant could not bring to the notice of this Forum any law, instruction or rule, according to which complainant could approach the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum of the opposite parties challenging the order dated 18.8.2008, already passed by the said forum in respect of the dispute raised by the complainant. Under such circumstances, the cause of action infact lastly accrued to the complainant on 18.8.2008 when his complaint was decided by Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum of the opposite parties. Thus, the present complaint filed by the complainant on 21.11.2011 is not within limitation, because the period of limitation for filing complaint is two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. Neither in the complaint any sufficient cause has been given for not filing the complaint within prescribed period of limitation of two years none application for condonation of delay as envisaged Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, was filed.

11.              As a sequel to aforesaid discussion, we arrive at the conclusion that the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation. Therefore, there is no need to deal with other aspects of the case. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 19.12.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member