Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/409/2019

Raje Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

R.K Panwar

19 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,FATEHABAD.

                                                           Complaint No.409 of 2019.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 27.09.2019.

                                                           Date of Decision: 19.12.2023.

 

Raje Ram son of Surja Ram resident of village Khara Kheri Tehsil & District, Fatehabad.

 

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through Executive Engineer, Operation Division, DHBVN Tehsil Fatehabad District Fatehabad.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation Sub-Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (City), Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.  
3. Junior Engineer, Ist Sub-Office, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Badopal, Tehsil Fatehabad District, Fatehabad.

 

                                                                             …Opposite parties.

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

BEFORE:             Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.

                             Dr.K.S.Nirania, Member

 

Argued by:            Sh.Raj Kumar Panwar, Adv. for the complainant.

                             Sh.Kuldeep Sharma, Adv. for the Ops.

ORDER:

Sh.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                            

1.                          The complainant has filed this complaint against the    OPs with the averments that there is an electric connection bearing account No.KRID-0154 installed at village Khara Kheri Tehsil & District Fatehabad and he has been using the same by making regular payments of electricity bills and nothing has been due against him; that the Ops have sent a bill of Rs.8170/- payable on 26.02.2019 wherein an amount of Rs.7299/- has been shown as arrears for 865 units; that no opportunity of being heard has also been given to the complainant;  that in the month of April, 2019, the officials of the Nigam wrongly and illegally, without giving any notice, disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant on account of non-payment of the amount; that the complainant requested the Ops treat the bill wrong and illegal and to restore the electricity connection but to no avail.  The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint

2.                          The OPs appeared and filed their joint reply wherein it has been submitted that the connection bearing No.KR1D/0154 of the complainant was disconnected as the complainant had been the defaulter of the energy bills; that as per the terms and conditions, the complainant is bound to make the payment of consumed electricity; that at the time of PDCO No.73/121 on 31.01.2019, 1280 units were recorded in the removed meter; that the complainant is a habitual defaulter and he never deposits electricity bills, therefore, an amount of Rs.11572/- with surcharge is due against him till, July 2019; that the meter of the complainant was checked in the lab on 09.09.2017 and he was found indulging in theft, therefore, notice for loss of Rs.22860/- and notice for compounding the loss of Rs.6000/- was sent to the complainant which was challenged by in before Civil Court, Fatehabad. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          The complainant has tendered affidavit and document Annexure CW1/A alongwith document Annexure C2 to Annexure C15. On the other hand, the Ops have tendered affidavit Annexure R1 with documents Annexure R2 and Annexure R3.

 4.                         Heard. We have examined the pleadings and documents of the parties very carefully. There is no dispute between the parties that there was an electric connection bearing account No.KR1D-0154 and the complainant was using that connection. The complainant has come with the plea that the Ops have issued the impugned bill wrongly and illegally and further disconnected his electricity connection without giving any opportunity of being heard. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops has stressed hard that the complainant is a habitual defaulter of not making the electricity charges, therefore, his electricity connection was declared PDCO vide Annexure R2 and the bill for the actual recorded consumed units of 1280, shown in the removed meter, was sent to the complainant and as per the rules and regulations of the Nigam, the complainant is bound to make the payment thereof.

5.                          The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the Ops is fully supported with PDCO dated 29.01.2019 and copy of sundry placed on the case file as Annexure R2 and Annexure R3. The Ops in their reply have specifically mentioned that the complainant was found indulged in theft of electricity, therefore, notice for loss of Rs.22860/- and notice for compounding the loss of Rs.6000/- was sent to the complainant.  The Ops in their reply has also mentioned that an amount of Rs.11572/- was due against the complainant and this fact finds support from sundry Annexure R3. The complainant was given ample of opportunities to counter the pleadings of the Ops by leading cogent and reliable evidence but he has failed to do so rather the fact qua outstanding of Rs.11572/- is well proved on the case file. Perusal of sundry Annexure R3 reveals that the complainant had only deposited an amount of Rs.2505 on 28.09.2017, Rs.7460 on 31.03.2017 and Rs.6000/- on 24.03.2017 which shows that the complainant is a habitual defaulter. There is nothing on the case file to show that the amount of Rs.11572/- is not for electricity use and is being charged by the Ops for other counts. It is a settled principle of law that the person who raises plea of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against any person/party, the burden always lies with the person who raised that plea, therefore without any proof of deficiency, the opposite parties cannot be held responsible for any deficiency in service but in the present case the complainant has not produced the best evidence in support of his contentions.

6.                          On the basis of above mentioned discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency in service at all or any unfair trade practice, on the part of any of the Ops, as alleged, so as to make any of them liable to any extent in this matter. Hence, the complaint is dismissed in view of the facts and circumstances stated above.  All the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.  This order be uploaded, forthwith, on the website of this Commission as per rules for the perusal of the parties. File be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 19.12.2023

 

 

                                                                                                        

                             (K.S.Nirania)           (Rajbir Singh)                                                                Member                       President