Haryana

Panchkula

CC/171/2016

RAJU - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

NARINDER KAJLA.

25 Apr 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                         

Consumer Complaint No.	:	171 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	08.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	25.04.2017

 

 

Raju s/o Sh.Vishvanath, R/o H.No.39, Fatehpur Colony (Jhugian), Sector-21, Panchkula (Haryana).

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Industrial Area, Panchkula Haryana through its SDO Operation.

2.       Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Sadan, Plot No.16, Sector-6, Panchkula Haryana through its Superintendent Engineer.

 

                                                                    ….Opposite Parties

 

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

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Narinder Kajla, Adv., for the complainant.

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

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that he has an electric connection bearing No.0435550000 and meter No.PS302230 for domestic supply having sanctioned load of 0.500 KW as he has five electricity point i.e. two bulb, one cooler, one ceiling fan & one TV connection and paying all the electricity bills regularly and the meter of the complainant was defective since its installation. The complainant told the Ops many times about the defective meter but to no avail and the Ops were charging the electricity bills from the complainant on average basis. In the year 2015, the Ops issued a bill of Rs.25,243/- and the complainant being a poor labour could not deposit the amount and requested the Ops to correct the bill but to no avail. The Ops again issued a bill of enhanced amount of Rs.30,910/- and further in the month of July, 2015, the Ops issued a bill of Rs.46,265/-. The complainant again approached the Ops to correct the electricity bill of complainant and to check the meter and physical status of the consumption of the electricity but the ops neither checked the load nor physical status of the consumption of the electricity meter and directed the complainant to deposit Rs.24,000/-. The Ops told the complainant if he failed to deposit the electricity amount, the Ops would disconnect the electricity. The complainant was left with no option than to deposit Rs.24,000/- in the month of August, 2015. Further the Ops assured the complainant that they would adjust the excess payment made by the complainant in future bills but the Ops did not adjust the excess amount. Thereafter, the Ops issued the electricity bill of Rs.36,254/- without any such consumption of the electricity and further in the month of January, 2016, the Ops issued the bill of Rs.38,013/-. Further the Ops threatened the complainant for disconnection and under pressure the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.12,000/- in the month of January, 2016. The complainant requested the Ops many times to check the electricity meter of the complainant but to no avail and in the month of May, 2016, the Ops issued a bill of Rs.1,72,357/-. The complainant is a daily wager (Raj Mistri) and residing in a small house (Jhuggi), therefore, he is unable to pay such a huge amount of Rs.1,72,357/-. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops appeared before this Forum and filed written statement. It is denied that the complainant was having five electricity points at his residence i.e. two bulbs, one cooler, one ceiling fan and a TV. It is submitted that the complainant was working as Raj Mistri and Contractor and used to supply the electricity to the labourer which he has engaged. It is denied that the complainant was paying the electricity bill regularly. It is submitted that the complainant left his house at about 8 am and came back at about 8 PM, whenever the concerned reader used to visit the premises for recording the meter reading, he found the house locked and the electricity bill was issued as per the average basis from January, 2008 to November, 2014. It is submitted that the Ops had issued the electricity bill in March, 2015 of the consumed units as in the month of January, 2015, the house of the complainant was found opened by the meter reader. Thereafter, in the month of July, 2015, another bill was issued by the Ops but inspite of that the complainant has not deposited the electricity bill. It is submitted that the electricity meter installed in the premises was found ok. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.24,000/- was deposited by the complainant with the Ops and thereafter another bill was issued by the Ops but out of total outstanding amount, an amount of Rs.12,000/- only was deposited by the complainant.  It is denied that the Ops have threatened to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant. It is submitted that the account of the complainant was overhauled by the Ops for the period from September, 2013 to November, 2014 as per rule of the Nigam and as per overhauling 700 units were minus from total 20183 units and there were remained only 19483 units which came amounting to Rs.1,72,357/- but the complainant did not deposit the said amount. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.1,77,510/- was still outstanding against the complainant till August, 2016. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs 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-9 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the Ops has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith document Annexure R-1 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. 0435550000 with sanction load of 0.500 KW. The case of the complainant is that the Ops on 10.03.2015 issued a bill (Annexure C-3) of Rs.25,243/- to the complainant. The Ops again issued a bill of enhanced amount of Rs.30,910/- and further in the month of July, 2015, the Ops issued a bill of Rs.46,265/-. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.24,000/- in August, 2015 but thereafter, the Ops issued the bill of Rs.38,013/-. The complainant also deposited an amount of Rs.12,000/- under pressure in January, 2016 but in the month of May, 2016, the Ops issued a bill of Rs.1,72,357.
6. On the other hand, the Ops submitted that the complainant is working as Raj Mistri (contractor) and used to supply the electricity to the labourer. The complainant left his house at 8 am and came back at 8 pm, therefore, the house of the complainant remained locked and the bills were issued to him on average basis from January, 2008 to November, 2015 and the electricity meter of the complainant was found ok. The Ops further submitted that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.24,000/- and Rs.12,000/- out of total outstanding amount and an amount of Rs.1,77,510/- was still outstanding against the complainant till August, 2016.
7. After having gone through the evidence and documents available on case file, we are of the view that the plea taken by the Ops is that the complainant is a contractor and used to supply the electricity to his labourer and the meter of the complainant was found OK but the Ops have not placed on record any such documents to prove that the complainant used to supply electricity to his labourer and it was so as to why the Ops have not got the FIR registered for theft of electricity. Further the Ops did not place on record any lab report to show that the meter of the complainant was Ok. The Ops have also failed to place on record the document to prove that the meter of the complainant was sent to lab for testing. During the arguments, the counsel for the Ops has placed on record an audit report dated 13.11.2015 (Mark ‘A’) which shows that the Ops issued the bills from January, 2008 to November, 2014 on account of assessment after lapse of more than 2 years.
8. Now the question before us is as to whether the OPs can charge any amount from the complainant on the basis of assessment done by their audit party beyond 2 years. On perusal of detail submitted by the counsel for the Ops at the time of arguments, it reveals that the Ops issued bills on average basis from January, 2008 to November, 2014.
9. From the perusal of the records, it reveals that the demand of Rs.1,77,511/- raised by the OPs vide demand notice dated 09.05.2016 (Annexure C-9) pertains to the period January, 2008 to November, 2014. However, the OPs demanded impugned amount from the complainant only in May, 2016 i.e. after more than 2 years.
10. 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 Ops before us.
11. 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.
12. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 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.
13. 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 OPs wrongly demanded the defaulting amount after gap of more than 2 years from the complainant vide notice (Annexure C-9) dated 09.05.2016. After going through the above discussion, we are of the opinion that this act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint is hereby allowed and the OPs are hereby directed:-
    1. To treat the notice dated 09.05.2016 as set aside and cancelled being time barred.

 

2. Not to demand Rs.1,77,510/- from the complainant on account of assessment from January, 2008 to November, 2014 and the amount of Rs.36,000/- deposited by the complainant against the notice dated 09.05.2016 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

25.04.2017  JAGMOHAN SING      ANITA KAPOOR       DHARAM PAL

                     MEMBER                  MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

 

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

 

                                          

                                            

                                                DHARAM PAL                                                                                         PRESIDENT