State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.D.H.B.V.N. Limited, Through X En. ... vs Bhan Chand S/O Sohan Lal, R/O Village ... on 6 April, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1051 of 2008 Date of Institution: 21.04.2008 Date of Decision: 06.04.2012 1. D.H.B.V.N. Limited, through X En. Operation, DHBVNL, Fatehabad. 2. SDO Operation, Sub Division, Sub Urban, DHBVNL, Fatehabad. Appellants (Ops) Versus Bhan Chand s/o Sohan Lal, r/o village Matana, Tehsil and District Fatehabad. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.
For the Parties: Mrs. Sheenu Sura, Advocate for appellant.
Shri Ashok Arora, advocate for respondent.
O R D E R Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.03.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum, Fatehabad in complaint No.35/2008.
Undisputed facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that the complainant is a consumer of the appellants-opposite parties in respect of tubewell electricity connection. The connection was released from L.T. line and the complainant wanted to get it converted into H.T. line and for that purpose the complainant made a request to the opposite parties. Acceding to the request of the complainant, the opposite parties directed the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- which was deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties but the connection was not converted from LT line to HT line. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum by filing complaint bearing No.294 on 19.12.2002. In the said complaint, by recording the statements of the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 10.04.2003 directed the opposite parties to lay H.T. line in the field of the complainant and to install a transformer on the tubewell of the complainant as per re-framed estimate routing the H.T. line for transformer to be installed at complainants tubewell. Accordingly, the opposite parties prepared and estimate for H.T. line connection and the connection of the complainant was converted from L.T. line to H.T. Line for which a transformer was also installed.
After passing five years, the opposite parties issued a bill to the complainant for Rs.27,558/- which was payable upto 06.11.2007 in which a sum of Rs.25,741 was added as sundry charges and thus the opposite parties wanted to recover Rs.30,000/- from the complainant by adding interest and surcharge on the amount of Rs.25,741/-. Challenging the demand so made, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement wherein they justified the demand of Rs.25,741 as sundry charges for converting complainants connection from LT to HT and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on record, District Consumer Forum accepted the complaint and issued following directions:-
..we accept the complaint of the complainant with cost of Rs.1000/-, set aside the impugned amount to the tune of Rs.25,741/- added in the bill Ex.C-4, holding the same to be illegal & null and void. The Ops are restrained from recovering the disputed amount of Rs.25,741/- from the complainant as sundry charges and also from disconnecting the electric supply of the complainant for not making the payment of the same. Consequently, the surcharge added in the bill of the complainant on account of the impugned amount shall also be deducted from the bill and the Ops shall allowed the complainant to deposit the remaining amount of the bill Ex.C-4. The compliance of this order be made within a period of one month, failing which the complainant is at liberty to initiate legal proceedings against the respondents.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the opposite parties have come up in appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
On behalf of the appellants it has been argued that the Audit Party had audited all the cases of Dedicated Transformer Scheme and it was found that the second instalment, which was required to be paid by the consumer on account of the expenses, had not been deposited by some consumers. The name of the complainant was mentioned at Sr.no.5 in the objection list. Thus, in compliance to the objection raised by the Audit Party, an amount of Rs.25,741/- was added as sundry charges in the account of the complainant and a bill for the total amount of Rs.27,558/- was issued to the complainant which was to be paid on 06.11.2007.
We do not subscribe to the arguments raised on behalf of the appellants. Admittedly, the amount of Rs.10,000/- was charged from the complainant by the opposite parties in the year 2003 for converting complainants tubewell connection from LT to HT and the impugned bill was sent in the year 2007 i.e. after four years. 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 untill the due amount has been shown payable continuously in the ledger. It is not the case of the opposite parties before us and therefore, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence, it is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 06.04.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member