BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,   REWARI.

                                                Consumer Complaint No: 612 of 2011.

Date of Institution:   08.12.2011.

Date of Decision:     25.03.2015.

Hari Chand son of Shri Sukh Lal resident of village Malpura, Tehsil Dharuhera, Distt. Rewari.

                                                                                …….Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. S.D.O. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran  Nigam , Dharuhera,
2. Xen, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Dharuhera, Distt. Rewari.

                                                                        …...Opposite  Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12  of Consumer Protection Act

        Before: Shri  Raj  Kumar ………. …..………..PRESIDENT

                      Shri Kapil Dev Sharma…………………MEMBER

Present :         Shri  Saurabh Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.

                       Shri Jaswant Singh ,Advocate for the opposite parties. 

                                                ORDER

 Per  Raj Kumar President

                             Factual matrix comprising the case of the complainant, shorn of details, is that the complainant who is the beneficiary of electricity connection no. MU-53-2040 in the name of his father late Shri Sukh Lal, was imposed a penalty of Rs. 18,970/- vide memo dated 24.1.2009 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and the said amount was duly paid by him on the very date.   It is

averred that in the month of July, 2011, he received a bill in which an amount of Rs. 36,030/- has been  added as sundry allowances which is quite wrong and illegal; hence this complaint.

2)                         In reply, it is averred that the amount of Rs. 36,030/- is the penalty amount which was levied on the complainant during the checking held by Vigilance Staff of the Nigam and the same is outstanding for which the  complainant is bound to deposit the same. 

3)                         We have heard both the counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case available on the file thoroughly.

4)                         The main contention of the opposite parties is that Rs. 36,030/- has been charged as an outstanding amount against the complainant on account of checking held by Vigilance Staff of the Nigam. It is  not disputed that Ex. C-2 is the checking report on account of theft dated 24.1.2009 whereby the consumer was to pay Rs. 18,970/- in total.  A perusal of Ex. C-3 reveals that the consumer has promptly paid the said amount and, therefore, nothing was due to him. The opposite parties have not been able to explain as to when order of assessment passed by competent authority  under Section 135 of the Act was complied by paying the amount of Rs. 18,970/- then how subsequently the amount  swelled to Rs. 36,030/-.  The counsel for the opposite parties however argued that the amount was revised in the audit report and as such it was added in the subsequent bill. This contention is not tenable as neither it has been pleaded by the opposite parties nor it has been stated so in the affidavit filed by the opposite parties as Ex.OP-1. The same, therefore, becomes illegal when it is reflected  in the bill without issuing any notice or opportunity of being heard.  The extra demand is, therefore, not sustainable in the law and is, therefore, set aside being illegal.    

5)                         Resultantly, the complaint is allowed. The impugned sundry charge of Rs. 36,030/- is set aside.    The complainant is also allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5500/- against the opposite parties. Ordered accordingly. 

Announced

25.3.2015.                          

                                                                    President,

                                                          Distt. Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Rewari.

                    Member, 

             DCDRF,Rewari.