Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd vs RAJJI BAI

CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated 6. 12. 2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad whereby the amount of Rs. 18,825 added as sundry charges in the bill Ex. C-2 as well as mentioned in the notice No. 2530 dated 28. 8. 2006 for the period 17. 3. 2007 to 17. 4. 2007 payable on 17. 5. 2007 issued to the respondent-complainant has been set aside and direction has been given to the appellant-opposite parties not to recover the said amount from the complainant and also not to disconnect the electric supply from her tubewell. In addition Rs. 500 has been awarded as litigation expenses.

PUT shortly, the facts of the case are that the complainant has been provided with electric connection for her tubewell, bearing account No. NJP 15384, JM 53/2060 located in Village Jamalpur Shekha, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad. The complainant had applied for installation of transformer at her tubewell under the dedicated scheme to the opposite parties in the year 2001 for which she had deposited Rs. 10,000 with the opposite parties. The opposite parties had calculated the estimated amount of Rs. 54,770 and by giving benefit of Rs. 39,975 balance amount of Rs. 14,795 was payable by the complainant. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued a notice bearing Memo No. 2530 dated 28. 8. 2006 as well as bill Ex. C-2 for the period 17. 3. 2007 to 17. 4. 2007 payable on 17. 5. 2007 whereby demand of Rs. 18,825 was made as sundry charges. In addition to the amount of Rs. 14,795 mentioned above, the opposite parties also claimed Rs. 3,500 as the cost of the meter and Rs. 350 on account of extension of load. Aggrieved by the demand made the complainant filed the present complaint alleging that she had deposited the amount Rs. 10,000 as demanded from her under the dedicated scheme and the transformer was installed at her tubewell after completing formalities and no amount was due against her, whereas the above stated bill Ex. C-2 and notice dated 28. 8. 2006 had been issued to her without affording any opportunity of hearing and she had been condemned unheard. Accordingly, it was prayed that the demand made in the bill Ex. C-2 and notice dated 28. 8. 2006 be set aside and direction be given to the opposite parties not to recover the aforesaid amount and not disconnect the electric supply of her tubewell. In addition, she claimed Rs. 10,000 as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. They justified the demand made on the basis of discrepancy pointed out by the Audit Party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Taking into consideration the above pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum accepted the complaint on two grounds. Firstly, that when she was issued the notice bearing Memo No. 2530 dated 28. 8. 2006 and bill Ex. C-2 for the period 17. 3. 2007 to 17. 4. 2007 payable on 17. 5. 2007, no opportunity of hearing was given to her and for that reason the demand made could not be sustained being illegal and against the principles of natural justice and the impugned amount could not be recovered from her. For coming to the conclusion reliance was placed on the observations made in case of Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Birmaram, IV (2004) CPJ 59, wherein it was held that the additional demand made on the basis of report of auditor without disclosing basis for raising the demand of disputed amount could not be permitted under the rules. Seconly, that the demand in question had been made in the above stated notice after the expiry of more than three years which claim is barred under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2003 ). Accordingly, directions noticed above were given in the order dated 6. 12. 2007 of the District Forum. Hence, the present appeal at the behest of the appellant-opposite parties. Learned Counsel representing the appellant-opposite parties has been heard at length.

There is delay of 55 days in filing the appeal and the same is condoned under the circumstances of the case.

THE learned Counsel representing the appellants while assailing the order of the District Forum dated 12. 12. 2007 mainly contended that the District Forum had overlooked the factual position brought on record and for that reason the order of the District Forum deserved to be set aside. There is hardly any force in the submission made. Admittedly, in this case demand has been made by the opposite parties on the basis of objection raised by the Audit Party. The opposite parties have placed on record the documents containing estimate of the additional demand made Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-6. It is clear from the material placed on record that the opposite parties have not cared to follow the relevant instructions contained in Para Nos. 2 and 3 of the Sales Circular No. 27/96 which read as under: "it is regular feature in the Electricity Board that Audit Parties audit the consumer''s account and penalty is imposed whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party. It is understood that whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party, the SDO concern is required to check the report but in practice the penalty is imposed without any cross checking by the SDO concerned. Before imposing penalty, etc. , notice is required to be given to consumer to explain his position. "the requirement of law is that proper prescribed procedure is to be followed and before imposing penalty on the consumer notice is required to be issued to the consumer. It should be ensure that seven days is given to the consumer before imposing penalty in such cases. "

The above instructions leave no manner of doubt that the opposite parties were duty bound to supply the necessary details of the audit report and to give a proper notice in terms of the above stated requirement which the opposite parties have not complied with in this case. Apart from that the District Forum has also taken into consideration that the amount of Rs. 10,000 was got deposited from the complainant under the dedicated scheme on 27. 4. 2001 as is evident from the receipt Ex. C-4. The present demand made had been raised in the bill Ex. C-2 along with the energy consumption charges for the period 17. 3. 2007 to 17. 4. 2007 payable on 17. 5. 2007 which demand has been made after the expiry of period of three years, and the same is barred under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The finding of the District Forum as such cannot be faulted because section 56 of the Act, 2003 expressly provides that no sum due from any consumer under this Section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supply and licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity. The opposite parties while issuing the demand on the basis of Audit Report has totally ignored the above stated provisions and the findings of the District Forum that this demand is barred under the aforesaid provisions, as such, have to be uphold and the demand of Rs. 18,825 as sundry charges made in the bill payable upto 17. 5. 2007 issued to the complainant on the face of record was illegal and unjustified and has been rightly set aside by the District Forum.

FOR the aforesaid reasons there is no merit in the appeal and the same is consequently dismissed. Appeal dismissed.