BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.436 of 2020.
Date of institution: 23.12.2020.
Date of decision:26.04.2022.
Om Parkash son of Kali Ram, r/o Gali No.1, Jakholi Adda, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- S.D.O., UH.B.V.N., Division No.1, Kaithal.
- Secretary, Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.
….Respondents.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act
CORAM: DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.
SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Amit Sudershan, Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT
Om Parkash-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.
In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is consumer of respondents vide electricity connection bearing account No.KA-14/5892 (old), 5109100000 (new) and he has been paying the bills regularly. Now the respondents have issued the bill dt. 12.12.2020 amounting to Rs.20,908/-, wherein the current charges are shown as Rs.1838/- and an amount of Rs.19069/- has been added as sundry charges. The complainant has challenged the said bill. The said bill is stated to be wrong and illegal. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
2. Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; the electricity connection of complainant remained defective from March, 2015 to September, 2016. The audit party of the Nigam checked and audited the record for the year of April, 2016 to March, 2017 and the account of consumer was overhauled as per available record/consumption of new meter. Hence, a sum of Rs.27,917/- was chargeable from the consumer vide Half Margin No.127 dt. 16.11.2017. Due to mistake and inadvertently, concerned official of the Nigam, waived off a sum of Rs.19069/- from the electricity account of the consumer as per sales circular No.U-15/2018. It is further stated that the Audit Party of the Nigam vide Half Margin No.78 dt. 09.01.2020 again checked and audited the account of complainant and during audit, the audit party found that a sum of Rs.19069/- had been waived off by the Sub Division as per sales circular No.15/2018. But as per record, no defaulting amount was outstanding against the consumer during 06/2018. Hence, Rs.19069/- may be charged after due verification of record. It is further stated that on the basis of Audit Report/recommendations of audit party of the Nigam, the above-said amount of Rs.19069/- has been debited into electricity account of complainant vide sundry No.38/48/247A as per rules. Thereafter, the bill in dispute has been prepared and issued in favour of complainant as per rules. Hence, the Ops are legally empowered to disconnect the electricity connection of complainant in case of non-depositing the bill amount with the Nigam that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the respondents tendered into evidence document Annexure-R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. for the complainant has stated that in October-2020, complainant had deposited Rs.5227/- with the respondents. It has been argued that vide bill dt. 12.12.2020, a sum of Rs.20,908/- has been demanded from the complainant while the current bill of complainant was Rs.1838/- and no outstanding bill was pending against the complainant. When the complainant met with the respondent No.1, then he was referred to audit letter dt. 09.01.2020 vide which a sum of Rs.19,069/- was charged against him as sundry charges.
7. It is the stand of respondents that an electricity connection (DS) bearing account No.KA-14/5892 (old), 5109100000 (new) has been released by the Nigam in favour of complainant, which remained defective during the term for March, 2015 to September, 2016 and electricity bills were being issued in favour of complainant and complainant was got depositing the electricity charges with the Nigam. It has been argued by Sh. Amit Sudershan, Adv. for the respondents that the audit party checked the record and found that the electricity meter of consumer remained defective w.e.f. March, 2015 to September, 2016 and respondents replaced the defective meter with the new electricity meter. It has been further argued that the account of consumer was overhauled as per available record/consumption of new meter and a sum of Rs.27,917/- was chargeable from the consumer vide Half Margin No.127 dt. 16.11.2017. It has been further argued that due to mistake and inadvertently, concerned official of the Nigam waived off a sum of Rs.19069/- from the electricity account of the complainant. It has been further argued that the Audit Party of the Nigam vide Half Margin No.78 dt. 09.01.2020 under audit period from April, 2018 to March, 2019 again checked the record and found that a sum of Rs.19069/- was chargeable from the complainant and on the basis of Audit Report, the above-said amount of Rs.19069/- has been debited into electricity account of complainant vide sundry No.38/48/247A as per rules of the Nigam.
8. In the present case, the concerned official of the Nigam had inadvertently and by mistake waived off the amount of Rs.19069/- from the electricity account of complainant and lateron as per the audit report, the aforesaid amount of Rs.19069/- was inserted in the electricity bill of complainant as per sundry charges. Therefore, there is no merit in the case of complainant. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:26.04.2022.
(Dr. Neelima Shangla)
President.
(Rajbir Singh), (Suman Rana),
Member. Member.
Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.
