Haryana

Panchkula

CC/216/2016

K.C JAIN. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITREAN NIGAM LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

06 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                         

Consumer Complaint No.	:	216 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	17.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	06.02.2017

 

K.C. Jain aged 81 years son of late Shri Ganpat Rai Jain, resident of # 296, Sector 16, Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Sub Divisional Officer, Industrial Area Phase II, Panchkula (Haryana).

                                                                         ….Opposite Party

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

                             Mr.Y.P.Rana, Adv., for the Op.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Op with the averments that he has an electric connection bearing No. PC14-1515 for domestic supply having sanctioned load of 1.0 KW and paying all the electricity bills regularly. On 14.11.2012, the complainant noticed that the electricity meter installed at above said address was not working and informed the OP vide letter dated 15.11.2012 (Annexure C-1), received by OP and requested the S.D.O/J.E to replace the meter, but inspite of the letter & repeated personal visits the OP, had not bothered to replace the meter. The OP started giving average bills as per charge of last year’s readings & complainant paid all the bills regularly. Complainant deposited Rs. 3300/- vide receipt No. 124 dated 30.04.2013 as verbally required by the OP after number of visits for replacement of meter. After harassing the complainant for almost 1.5 years finally, the meter got replaced on 20.01.2014. Complainant was made to run for 1.5 years for getting the meter replaced and after lapse of more than 3 years, complainant received a notice vide memo no. 2171 dated 08.02.2016 received on 19.02.2016 to pay  an exorbitant amount of Rs. 36,887/- within 15 days chargeable. No details of arrears were provided in demand notice to the complainant by the OP. The complainant requested the OP that all the dues have already been paid and nothing was due against complainant and further requested to withdraw the notice vide letter dated 24.02.2016 received by the OP vide diary No. 3199, but no reply has been received till the filing of complaint. Complainant again requested the OP that I have already paid all the bills on previous average basis as per bills given by the OP. The average bills were required to be paid because of non cooperation and non replacement of the meter by the OP. The complainant was being penalized for no fault of his. The complainant requested the OP to withdraw this notice but no satisfactory reply given by the OP. On 26.06.2016 the linemen, came to disconnect the electricity connection of complainant and he met the concerned SDO and requested to do justice and withdraw the payment notice, but concerned SDO forced complainant to deposit at least 30% amount of arrears to review the case on previous year average basis and to stop disconnection of meter. The complainant again contacted the SDO on 28.06.2016 and requested to settle the case, he again was forced to pay Rs. 18,000/- (being 30%of arrears amount plus current bill) out of total bill of Rs. (6427+1323+1100+36887=45737 regular bill+surcharge+arrear amount) respectively as a part payment. The complainant was being threatened by the OP to disconnect the electricity connection, complainant paid an amount of Rs. 18,000/- (6427/-a regular bill amount and 11,573/- being part arrears payment on 28.06.2016) under protest on the pretext of promise made by the SDO to review the case on previous year’s average basis. This he gave in writing also. He further promised to do it within a day. Thereafter, the complainant repeatedly visited the OP on 08.07.2016, 14.07.2016 and 26.07.2016 and met the SDO, but nothing was done. On 28.07.2016, he finally refused to review the case. As it seems that the SDO was be fooling the complainant by making false promise. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Op appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and the rules regulations of the Op. It is submitted that the complainant was consumer of the OP under Account No. PC-14-1515. It is submitted that November 2012 till January, 2014 the OP used to send the bill on average basis in respect of the electricity connection as the electricity was defective and thereafter the OP had installed the new electricity meter vide MCO 89/355 dated 15.07.2013 and then the electricity bill of consumed units were sending of the complainant from March, 2014 till the filing of complaint. It is submitted that the internal audit of the Nigam the OP has issued a letter Memo No. 2171 dated 08.02.2016 to the complainant for assessment for defective/deed stop meter from the period November, 2012 to March 2014 by taking average as 1415 per two months and an amount of Rs. 36,887/- were become due towards the complainant which the complainant has to deposit the same within the 15 days in the office of the OP failing which the amount so assessed shall be debited in his account without giving any further notice in this regard. It is submitted that the complainant inspite of receipt of the same has not deposited the amount. It is denied that the complainant was paying all the electricity consumption bills regularly. It is submitted that the meter was defective and thereafter the employees of the OP visited the premises and replaced the same with new on. It is submitted that as per the rules of the Nigam, notice has been issued to the complainant and the amount of the notice was not deposited by the complainant. It is submitted that the deposit of amount by the complainant with the answering OP was matter of record. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. The complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the Op has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 & R-2 and closed the evidence.
4. Heard. The complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the Op has reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Undisputedly, the complainant is having an electricity connection bearing No. PC14-1515. The case of the complainant is that the Op on 08.02.2016 sent a demand notice (Annexure C-4) to the complainant regarding recovery of defaulting amount of Rs.36,887/- on account of assessment for the defective period of meter from November, 2012 to March, 2014 after lapse of more than 2 years.
6. Now the question before us is as to whether the OP can charge any amount from the complainant on the basis of assessment done by their audit party for the defective period of meter. On perusal of detail (Annexure R-1) submitted by the OP it reveals that the meter was defective from November 2012 and the consumer was charged on the average basis of 1415 units. However, the defective meter was replaced in the month of January 2014 and thereafter the OP sent the bill on actual basis from March 2014.
7. From the perusal of the records, it reveals that the demand of Rs.36,887/- raised by the OP vide demand notice dated 08.02.2016 pertains to the period November, 2012 to January, 2014. However, the OP demanded impugned amount from the complainant only in February, 2016 i.e. after more than 2 years.
8. As per Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, no amount due from the consumer can be recovered after a period of two years from the date the amount became due, unless and until the due amount has been shown payable continuously in the ledger. It is not the case of the Op before us.
9. The Hon’ble National Commission in case Bombay Electricity Supply & Transport Undertaking Vs. Pophate Nursing Home & another, 1986-95 Consumer 497 (NS) has held that recovery of arrears for more than two years would be barred by limitation.
10. The Hon’ble SCDRC, Haryana in case titled as DHBVN vs. Khushi Ram, FA No.2370 decided on 05.06.2012, where Electricity Board demanded Rs.6958/- in the year 2001 from the complainant/consumer towards Sundry Charges on account of outstanding of his another connection disconnected in the year 1994 i.e. after a period of more than 7 years, has held that recovery of arrears for more than two years would be barred by limitation.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and ratio of law decided by higher courts, we are of the considered view that OP wrongly demanded the defaulting amount after gap of 2 years from the complainant vide notice (Annexure C-4) dated 08.02.2016. After going through the above discussion, we are of the opinion that this act and conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency in service on its part.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint is hereby allowed and the OP is hereby directed:-
    1. To treat the notice dated 08.02.2016 as set aside and cancelled being time barred.

 

2. Not to demand Rs.36,887/- from the complainant on account of assessment for the defective period of meter from November 2012 to January 2014 and the amount deposited by the complainant against the notice dated 08.02.2016 be adjusted in the future bill of the complainant.

 

3. In particular circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

06.02.2017            ANITA KAPOOR                  DHARAM PAL

                              MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          

                                            

                                                DHARAM PAL                                                                                         PRESIDENT