Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA
NAWAB SINGH, BALBIR SINGH, JJ.
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Meena Chauhan – Respondent
First Appeal No. 02 of 2017
Decided On : 06-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. B.D. Bhatia.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sunil Kundu.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing an opportunity of hearing before claiming disputed amounts and imposing penalty, in line with the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Electricity Bill Dispute - Consumer Protection - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 12
Fact of the Case:
The complainant received an electricity bill with a disputed amount of Rs. 95,623, which was claimed as arrears without prior notice or opportunity of hearing. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking relief from the disputed amount and compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant was not liable to pay the disputed amount of Rs. 95,623 and the subsequent surcharge imposed due to non-payment. The court also affirmed the order of the District Forum, directing the opposite party to deduct the disputed amount and adjust the amount already deposited by the complainant in future bills.
Issues: The main dispute was regarding the disputed amount of Rs. 95,623 charged as sundry charges in the electricity bill and the subsequent surcharge imposed due to non-payment. The court also considered the lack of prior notice or opportunity of hearing before claiming the disputed amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant was not liable to pay the disputed amount as it was claimed without prior notice or opportunity of hearing. The court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity of hearing before imposing penalty amounts and affirmed the order of the District Forum.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the findings of the District Forum and providing relief to the complainant from the disputed amount and subsequent surcharge.
ORDER :
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated July 28th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’).
2. Smt. Meena Chauhan-complainant (respondent herein) started construction work over a plot bearing No. F-138, TDI City, Kundli, Sonipat. At the time of construction, a temporary electricity connection having 1.00 KW load capacity was provided to the complainant by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL)-Opposite Party/appellant. After completing the construction work, the complainant was provided permanent domestic electricity connection in her premises having 15.00 KW load capacity bearing account No. RS-26-112-N. The complainant used to make payment of the electricity bills regularly. In the month of April 2015, the complainant received electricity bill issued on April 10 th, 2015 for payment of an amount of Rs. 1,01,915 including an amount of Rs. 95,623 which is mentioned as sundry charges in the electricity bill. The complainant requested the opposite parties to make correction in the electricity bill and for the time being, an amount of Rs. 7,000 was deposited regarding the above mentioned electricity bill. Thereafter, the complainant received electricity bills in the months of June, August, October and December 2015 also mentioning the above mentioned amount as arrears and adding surcharge. In the electricity bill issued on December 11th, 2015, an amount of Rs. 1,57,750 was claimed including an amount of Rs. 1,50,123 as arrears. Before claiming an amount of Rs. 95,623, no prior notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the complainant. The complainant is not liable to pay the above mentioned amount of Rs. 1,50,123 shown as arrears.
3. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to direct the opposite party not to recover the above mentioned amount of Rs. 1,50,123 and also not to disconnect the electricity connection and to pay an amount of Rs. 1.00 lac as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and an amount of Rs. 11,000 as litigation expenses.
4. The opposite party in her written version has taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is admitted fact that at the time of construction of house, the complainant was provided a temporary electricity connection and thereafter, the complainant was provided a permanent domestic electricity connection having 15.00 KW load in her premises. The opposite party has taken plea that an amount of Rs. 1,01,915 was added in the electricity bill dated April 10th, 2015 being arrears of the electricity bill amount regarding another electricity connection in the name of the complainant. The above mentioned amount was concerned with account No. T-1389. An amount of Rs. 95,623 was shown as an amount of Rs. 67,882 on account of Half Margin Report No. 91 dated January 21st, 2015 and an amount of Rs. 27,741 as shown in ledger account. Later on, bills for the month of June, August, October and December were issued as per instructions of the UHBVNL. No excessive amount has been claimed from the complainant. The complainant is liable to make payment of the total amount as mentioned in the electricity bill issued in the month of December 2015. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.
5. Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.
6. After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated July 28th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed directing the opposite party to deduct an amount of Rs. 95,623 as well as subsequent surcharge amount charged from the complainant and to adjust the amount of Rs. 50,000 in future bills, if already deposite
