Haryana

Panchkula

CC/223/2015

KANCHAN BALA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

BALJINDER SINGH

06 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.

                                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	223 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	12.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	06.06.2016

 

Kachan Bala aged 37 years ife of Rajinder Singla, r/o House No.1208-F Sector-11, Panchkula.

                                                                                  ….Complainant

Versus

1.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Shakti Bhavan, Sector 6, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

2.SDO Sub Urban, Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Panchkula.

                                                                ….Opposite Parties

 

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

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                             Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Baljinder Singh, Adv., for the complainant.

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

 

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

1.                          The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that she took possession over Government House No.1208-F Sector 11, Panchkula and the Ops provided an electric connection bearing account No.PS14/2014 SK. Thereafter the complainant shifted the accommodation at House No.1215 Sector 11. The Ops shifted the electricity connection on the request of the complainant by opening new account bearing No.A17PS14/2064H in the name of the complainant and since then the complainant has been making the payment of electricity bills regularly without any delay.  She applied for disconnection of electricity connection and demanded NOC, to be submitted with PWD B&R Department, on her being transferred to Chhachhoirli District Yamuna Nagar but they demanded an amount of Rs.61,754/- illegally.  Since the complainant was in need of NOC, therefore, she fulfilled the said illegal demand under protest. Out of Rs.61,754/- an amount of Rs.59026/- was charged as arrears illegally. The Ops have no right to retain the said amount illegally because without making the payment the Ops refused to issue NOC.  The complainant requested the Ops to refund the said amount alongwith interest and even served a legal notice upon the Ops regarding this but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part besides mental agony and harassment to the complainant.  In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit and documents Annexure C-A, Annexure C-1 to Annexure C26.

2.                          In joint reply, the Ops have taken preliminary objections such as concealment of facts, estoppal and maintainability of complaint. It is submitted that new electric connection No.PS14/2064 was provided to the complainant in the month of February 2011 and she kept on making the electricity bills till August, 2011.  The premises of the complainant was found locked from October, 2011, therefore, the Ops sent the bill from October 2011 to 30.06.2014 on average basis.  During this period, the complainant had paid only Rs.10316/-.  The connection was disconnected on 30.06.2014 vide PDCO No.56/806 and at that time the unit was shown as 14612.  Since the complainant had already paid Rs.10316/- therefore, she was under obligation to pay Rs.59026/- and the Ops have right to recover the same from the complainant.  The complainant herself has deposited the amount without any pressure and notice, therefore the demand raised by her is not valid. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Lastly, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavit and document Annexure RA and Annexure R1.

3.                          Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the Ops has reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                         We have gone through the file and documents placed on record.

5.                          During the course of hearing, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently argued that there was no justification whatsoever on the part of the OPs to bill her on average basis on the premise that the accommodation under occupation was found locked because the electricity meter is always located outside the occupied premises, which is evident from the photographs produced by the complainant.

6.                          The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of OPs could not controvert the factual averment that, as per the rule-related rigour in currency, the electricity meter would always be installed outside the premises, residential or commercial. He argued that the billing on average basis had been otherwise correctly done.

7.                          In the face of the practice in currency, the electricity meters are installed outside the premises. The obvious purpose thereof is that the electricity officials must have access to the electricity meter even if the premises in entirety are locked. There is no distinction, with regard to the locational placement of an electricity meter, as between premises been used for residential purposes or for a commercial activity. Our attention during the course of hearing could not be invited by the Learned Counsel appearing for the OPs to any circumstance which impelled the OPs to refrain from billing the complainant on the basis of actual metered consumption. When an electricity meter would always be accessible to the meter reader, there is no earthly reason why a consumer has to be billed on the basis of average consumption. It is to be noted particularly that it is not even the averment on behalf of the OPs that there had been any tampering with the electricity meter.

8.                          The inescapable conclusion, which can be culled out from the above facts which surfaced during the course of hearing, is that the OPs could not have validly billed the complainant on the basis of average consumption when there was no denial of access of the meter reader to the electricity meter installed at the premises under the occupation of the complainant.       

9.                          We would, while allowing the complaint, direct that: -

                      a)             The OPs have been proved to have illegally charged the amount of Rs.59026/- from the complainant under duress due to her need for the obtaining of an NOC. That amount shall be refunded to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realisation.

                      b)             The OPs, having been proved to have committed deficiency in service and to have further caused mental harassment to the complainant, would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the latter.

                      c)             The OPs shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation.

10.                                  The OPs shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to them comes about. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint.

 

 

Announced

06.06.2016           S.P.Attri               Anita Kapoor          Dharam Pal

                             Member                Member                     President

 

 

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

    

                                 

                                                     Anita Kapoor

                                                              Member