STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No:        1005 of 2019

Date of Institution:       21.11.2019

Date of Decision :       02.11.2020

1.      S.D.O (Operation) Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Division, ITI, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

2.      Executive Engineer (OP), Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Division Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                      ……Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

Vimal wife of Shri Dilbag Singh, resident of House No.39, Ram Nagar Colony, Kansapur Road, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

……Respondent-Complainant

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                             Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member                      

Present:               Shri B.S. Negi, counsel for the appellants. 

                                                   O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

          Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned for the reasons specified in the miscellaneous application.

2.      The opposite parties i.e. S.D.O (Operation), Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Yamuna Nagar and Executive Engineer (OP), Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, District Yamuna Nagar are in appeal against the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari whereby complaint filed by the complainant-Vimal wife of Dilbag Singh was accepted and the opposite parties were directed not to charge Rs.23,893/- from the complainant, which was included in electricity bill (Annexure C-2) as sundry charges and correct the future bill of the complainant accordingly.  The opposite parties were also held jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation including litigation expenses.

3.      According to the complainant, she is a consumer of electricity with the opposite parties against domestic connection bearing Account Number 6189080000 having sanctioned load of 4.90 KW. She has been paying the electricity consumption bill regularly.  She received bill No.SB19E2613910ARY2843 dated 26.05.2019 for the period 09.03.2019 to 26.05.2019 of 700 units (Annexure C-2) for a sum of Rs.27,329/-.  On receipt of the said bill, she got stunned on account of Rs.23,893/- included as sundry charges whereas she was not in arrears of electricity bill and charging of sundry charges in the sum of Rs.23,893/- was without any reason on the part of the opposite parties, which amounted to act of negligence, deficiency in service and causing mental agony to her, which necessitated filing of complaint by her.

4.      Upon notice, the opposite parties filed their written version pleading non maintainability of the complaint, it being without cause of action and allegations of the complainant with regard to negligence or deficiency in service were denied.  It was however stated that meter account of the complainant was overhauled by the Internal Audit Department vide half margin No.135 dated 20.02.2018 as it was found that meter of the complainant was defective as per ledger since 3/2015 to 10/2015.  Her meter had been changed in 10/2015 and as per audit party report a sum of Rs.23,893/- was found less charged from the complainant, which was included in the bill (Annexure C-2), which the complainant was legally bound to pay. 

5.      In her evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit dated 13.06.2019 and documents (Annexures C-2 to C-4) whereas the opposite parties in their defence relied upon documents (Exhibits R-1 and Exhibit R-2).

6.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, learned District Consumer Forum after holding that the act of the opposite parties with regard to including a sum of Rs.23,893/- as sundry charges in the bill had not been found justified, directed the opposite parties to overhaul the bill in question and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- jointly and severally to the complainant as lump sum compensation including litigation expenses.  

7.      Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that prior to issuance of bill (Annexure C-2), the complainant was not in arrears of electricity charges.  The dispute arose when an amount of Rs.23,893/- was included in the bill (Annexure C-2) as sundry charges. According to the opposite parties, the sundry charges were included when the meter was overhauled by the Audit Department vide half margin No.135 dated 20.02.2018 and it was found that the meter was defective as per ledger since 3/2015 to 10/2015.  The meter was changed in 10/2015.  If the meter had been found defective, the opposite parties were required to serve written notice upon the complainant. However, no document has been placed on the record.  No date has been pleaded as to on which particular date the defective meter was removed and in case it was removed then whether it was done in the presence of the complainant or her family members. The meter was found defective in between 3/2015 to 10/2015.  If that be so then the account was required to be overhauled immediately after 10/2015.  Rather it was done in the year 2018 which fact mentioned in the half margin No.135 (Exhibit R-1) followed by intimation of recovery of Rs.23,893/- from the complainant.  Further in view of the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the recovery became barred by limitation.  While issuing the bill (Annexure C-2) wherein an amount of Rs.23,893/- was included by way of sundry charges it was simply an act of negligence and deficiency in service for which the opposite parties liable to compensate the complainant in monetary terms.

8.      In view of the above, learned District Consumer Forum had rightly directed the opposite parties not to charge the amount of Rs.23,893/- from the complainant as sundry charges besides the opposite parties being jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation including litigation expenses.

9.      Resultantly, there is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.2,500/- deposited by the appellants while filing the appeal be released in favour of the complainant-Vimal against proper receipt and identification subject to any appeal/revision.

UK