Haryana

Karnal

CC/314/2020

Prem Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVNL Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjiv Kamboj

17 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 314 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.24.08.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:17.08.2023

 

Prem Chand son of Shri Nanha Ram, resident of village Baragaon tehsil and District Karnal, aged about 63 years. Aadhar no.9338 4681 6698.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVN Ltd. Sub Division, Newal District Karnal.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            …..Opposite Party.

       

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik……Member 

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Sanjiv Kamboj, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri B.P. Singh counsel for the opposite party.

 

                    (Vineet Kaushik, Member)

ORDER:                     

          

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is consumer of OP having electricity connection bearing no.NJ-17-1976-A, which is a domestic connection and the complainant since the day of installation of the said connection has been regularly paying the electricity charges to the OP. Complainant paid the last bill dated 29.05.2020. In the said bill there is no outstanding balance towards the complainant. Complainant received the bill dated 19.07.2020 for an amount of Rs.15833/- and the units consumed is shown as 416. In the said bill an amount of Rs.13754/- has been shown as sundry charges/allowances i.e. previously balance but the fact is that there is no previously balance or any kind of outstanding amount towards the complainant. The addition of amount of Rs.13754/- in the bill is quite illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the complainant. On receipt of the said bill, complainant contacted the OP and asked for reason of charging the abovesaid amount but OP has not given any satisfactory reply. Complainant further asked for acceptance of current energy charges and to rectify the mistake in the bill but OP flatly refused to do so and threatened the complainant that if he will not deposit the entire amount of bill then his connection will be disconnected. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.         

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the amount in question is actually due and recoverable from the complainant. Earlier an amount of Rs.27928/- was due and outstanding against the complainant but he was not paying the same. In the meantime, UHBVN launched a scheme for the settlement of pending electricity bills of defaulting connected and disconnected domestic consumers which are called as Waiver Scheme-2018 vide sale circular no.U-15/2018. The complainant on coming to know about the said scheme visited the office of the OP and requested for giving benefit of the said scheme. Accordingly, concerned dealing hand gave him rebate of Rs.13278/-, in the January, 2019, the account of the complainant was overhauled by the Internal Audit Party of the office of OP, vide half margin no.13 dated 29.05.2020 and observed that the complainant was not entitled for the abovesaid rebate because the consumer was not default as on 30.06.2018 and observed that the rebate of Rs.13278/- has been wrongly given to him and as such the OP on the basis of half margin transferred the said amount in the account of complainant, which is legal and valid and complainant is liable to pay the same. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of electricity bill dated 19.07.2020 Ex.C1, copy of electricity bill dated 29.05.2020 Ex.C2, copy of payment receipt Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 09.08.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             Learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajendra Kumar Ex.OP1/A, copy of half margin report Ex.OP1, copy of sale circular Ex.OP2, copy of sundry report Ex.C3, copy of sale circular no.U-15/2018 Ex.OP4, copy of wrong refund sundry Ex.OP5, copy of ledger detail Ex.OP6, copy of half margin (chargeable amount 13278/-) Ex.OP7, copy of sundry (chargeable amount 13278/-) Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence on 13.03.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is consumer of OP and paying the electricity charges regularly. Complainant received a bill dated 19.07.2020 for an amount of Rs.15833/-, in the said bill an amount of Rs.13754/- has been shown as sundry charges/allowances but there is no previous balance is outstanding against the complainant. The addition of amount of Rs.13754/- in the bill is quite illegal, null and void. Complainant requested the OP to correct the said bill and accept the current consumption charges but OP flatly refused to do so and threatened the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount then his connection will be disconnected and prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the amount of Rs.27928/- was due and outstanding against the complainant but he was not paying the same. OP launched a Waiver Scheme-2018 vide sale circular no.U-15/2018 for defaulting consumers. Complainant visited the OP and requested for giving benefit of the said scheme. Accordingly, concerned dealing hand gave him rebate of Rs.13278/-, in the January, 2019  but when the account of the complainant was overhauled by the Internal Audit Party they observed that the complainant was not entitled for the abovesaid rebate because the consumer was not default as on 30.06.2018 and observed that the rebate of Rs.13278/- has been wrongly given to him and as such the OP on the basis of half margin transferred the said amount in the account of complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, complainant was the user of electricity connection no.NJ-17-1976-A. It is an admitted fact that Government had launched a Waiver Scheme-2018, vide circular no.U-15/2018 and benefit of Rs.13,278/- was given to the complainant.

11.           OP has taken a plea that complainant was not entitled the benefit under the said scheme because he was not defaulter on 30.06.2018. To prove its version, OP has placed on file sale circular no.U-15/2018 Ex.OP4 dated 20.09.2018. According to said circular the principal amount of all such consumers who opt for the scheme, shall be recalculated from the date of default till 30.06.2018. In the present case, complainant was not defaulter on 30.06.2018. This fact is proved from the ledger Ex.OP6, which reveals that complainant paid the electricity bill on 28.04.2018, meaning thereby complainant was not a defaulter on or before 30.06.2018. OP had wrongly given the benefit of the abovesaid scheme. Mistake can be rectified within stipulated period and the same has been done by the OP while issuing the disputed bill.

12.           Thus, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:17.08.2023            

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)                        

       Member                        Member