BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.129/16.
Date of instt.: 13.05.2016.
Date of Decision: 16.01.2017.
Sukhdev Singh son of Sh. Gurdayal Singh, age about 70 years, r/o Village Lander Keema, Sub Tehsil Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban No.1, UHBVN, Kaithal.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through XEN, UHBVN, Kaithal.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its Secretary, O/O Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Sukhdev Punia, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Ramesh Rana, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Ops vide tubewell connection bearing account No.MM55-0993Y and has been paying the bills regularly. The complainant has challenged the bill No.4077 dt. 28.04.2016 amounting to Rs.66,043/- as an amount of Rs.62,519/- has been shown as sundry charges. The said bill is wrong and illegal. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the present complainant was having a DS connection No.KU-14/3134 which was defaulter and declared PDCO on 04.11.2008 vide PDCO No.44/916 at the reading of 12173 and against the said connection, there was the defaulting amount of Rs.62,519/-. Thereafter, in the month of April, 2016 this defaulting amount of Rs.62,519/- was sundry charged and transferred in his AP connection No.MM55-0993-Y through bill No.4077 dt. 28.04.2016 for recovery. The bill issued by the Ops is legal and valid. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW2/A and documents Ex.CA to Ex.CM and closed evidence on 09.09.2016. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed evidence on 08.11.2016.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant is consumer of Ops vide tubewell connection bearing account No.MM55-0993Y and has been paying the bills regularly. He further argued that the bill No.4077 dt. 28.04.2016 amounting to Rs.66,043/- issued by the Ops is wrong and illegal as an amount of Rs.62,519/- has been shown as sundry charges. He further argued that on enquiry by the complainant, the Ops told that the DS connection of complainant had been made PDCO on 04.11.2008 and the said amount of Rs.62,519/- of that PDCO connection has been added as sundry charges in the bill in question. He further argued that the category of said PDCO connection was DS, whereas the present connection is of AP category and the Ops cannot add the said amount of Rs.62,519/- of the DS connection in the present connection of AP category. He further argued that even otherwise, the imposition of Rs.62,519/- is illegal as the same has been barred by law of limitation as the said amount was upto the year 2008. He further argued that even according to para No.3 of the instructions No.7.3 placed on the file by the Ops as Ex.R6, the Ops cannot add the said amount in the bill in question of AP category connection. He further argued that no notice was given by the Ops to the complainant before adding of above-said amount of Rs.62,519/- as sundry charges. He further argued that in the case of other consumer namely Niranjan Singh, the civil suit filed by the Ops titled as UHBVN Vs. Niranjan was dismissed by the court of Ms. Taranjit Kaur, Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Kaithal on the ground of law of limitation vide order dt. 30.05.2014, the copy of which has been attached with the complaint. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted an authority reported in 2013(4) CCC page 247 (P & H, High Court) titled as Punjab State Electricity Board & another Vs. Rajinder Kumar. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that the present complainant was having a DS connection No.KU-14/3134 which was defaulter and declared PDCO on 04.11.2008 vide PDCO No.44/916 at the reading of 12173 and against the said connection, there was the defaulting amount of Rs.62,519/-. He further argued that in the month of April, 2016 this defaulting amount of Rs.62,519/- was added as sundry charges in bill No.4077 dt. 28.04.2016 as both the connections were in the name of same consumer.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, we found that the complainant is consumer of Ops vide electricity tubewell connection bearing account No.MM55-0993Y. It is clear from the bill in question that an amount of Rs.62,519/- has been added in this bill as sundry charges. It is admitted case of the Ops that this amount of Rs.62,519/- is of another D.S. connection, which was made PDCO on 04.11.2008. It is admitted case of the parties that the present connection of complainant is of AP category, whereas the PDCO connection was of DS category. Ld. Counsel for the Ops placed on file copy of letter (Ex.R3), which was written by the JE to to the S.D.O., UHBVN, Kaithal whereby the defaulting amount of Rs.62,519/- regarding connection No.MM55-0993-Y was requested to be transferred in the tubewell connection No.MM55-0993Y of the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the Ops also placed instruction No.7.3 of Sales Manual, 2013 (Ex.R6) on file. The ld. Counsel for Ops relied upon the paras No.4 and 5 of the said instruction, Ex.R6 but we found no force in the contention of Ops because the same are not applicable to the facts of instant case. Moreover, para No.3 of the same instruction requires that besides the same consumer, the premises should be same and a notice is also required to be issued to the defaulting consumer for settlement of the outstanding dues. The Ops have not placed on the file the copy of any notice issued to the complainant for the settlement of defaulting amount. Moreover, the said defaulting amount became due in the year 2008 but the Ops have added the same in the bill of complainant in the year 2016, which was barred by law of limitation. From perusal of the above-said instructions, it is clear that the case of complainant is not covered by these instructions. So, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Ops have wrongly added the amount of Rs.62,519/- in the bill in question of the complainant and thus, the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to waive off the amount of Rs.62,519/- and to adjust the amount already deposited by the complainant in his account, if any and further to pay Rs.2,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. Let the order be complied within 30 days of the commencement of order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.16.01.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
