Haryana

Karnal

CC/426/2021

Anand Kumar Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVN Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Subhash Gupta

17 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 426 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.24.08.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:17.05.2023

 

Anand Kumar Garg son of Shri Naresh Kumar, resident of house no.1434, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Karnal, aged about 46 years.  Aadhar card no.6256 4777 9108.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVN Ltd. Sub Urban sub Division, Sector 12, Karnal.                                               

 …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Subhash Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Vijender Malik, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (vineet kaushik, member)

ORDER:   

                

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is the user of the OP and having an electricity connection bearing no.0646524000, which is non-domestic connection. The complainant has been practicing as an Advocate in District Court, Karnal and that connection is for the chamber no.69, Lawyer Chamber Complex District Courts, Karnal. In the chamber the use of electricity is very less but the OP has been sending the bills on average basis instead of actual consumption. Earlier in the year 2018, due to spreading of fire in the meters of some of the chambers including chamber of complainant was burnt. Thereafter, OP restored the supply of other chambers by installing new meters but the meter of the chamber of the complainant was not installed and when complainant visited the OP to know the reason, then he replied that an amount of Rs.52218/- is due towards the said connection and until and unless said amount is not deposited till then his meter would not be restored. The complainant asked that the amount claimed is highly excessive and exaggerated as same is not as per the actual consumption of electricity. Complainant is ready to deposit the actual consumption charges. On this OP stated that firstly to deposit the entire amount then his request would be considered. Hence, complainant deposited the abovesaid amount under protest and then supply of complainant was restored but later on OP started sending the bills on average basis. In January, 2021 again bill of Rs.32397/-was issued by the OP. Complainant visited the office of OP and requested to overhaul his previous account and present account as per actual consumption of electricity but the OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant.  On the asking of OP, complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- under protest but nothing has done by the OP. Now the OP send bill dated 23.08.2021 for Rs.26,922/- and complainant again approached for overhauling his entire account as per actual consumption of electricity but OP refused to do so and threatened the complainant if he will not deposit the entire amount of the bill then his connection will be disconnected. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that prior to the bill dated 24.08.2018 the bill was sent by the OP to the complainant, but the same was not deposited by the complainant and thereafter the bill dated 23.10.2018, 25.12.2018, 22.02.2018, 25.04.2019, 26.06.2019, 12.08.2019, 20.10.2019, 24.12.2019, 26.02.2020, 10.04.2020, 23.06.2020, 25.08.2020, 25.10.2020, 21.12.2020, thereafter the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- and thereafter the OP served the bill dated 24.02.2021, 12.04.2021, 10.06.2021 and 06.08.2021 for an amount of Rs.26,922/- which is totally correct and legal. The complainant is liable to deposit the same with the OP.  It is wrong and denied that the OP has issued illegal bills to the complainant. The bills issued by the OP regularly, but it is complainant who had not deposited the amount of bill. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of electricity bills and payment receipt Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on 09.08.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vinay Kumar SDO Ex.OP1/A and copies of electricity bills Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP9 and closed the evidence on 25.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant has been practicing as an Advocate in District Court, Karnal and having an electricity connection in his chamber. In the year 2018, due to spreading of fire the meters of some of the chambers including chamber of complainant was burnt. OP restored the supply of other chambers by installing new meters but the meter of the chamber of the complainant was not installed due to reason that and amount of Rs.52218/- is due. The complainant deposited the said amount under protest and then supply of complainant was restored. In January, 2021 again bill of Rs.32397/-was issued by the OP. Complainant approached the OP and requested for overhauling the account of complainant and deposited Rs.10,000/- under protest but nothing has done by the OP. Now the OP send bill dated 23.08.2021 for Rs.26,922/- and complainant again requested the OP for overhauling his entire account as per actual consumption of electricity but OP refused to do so and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OP served the bill dated 24.02.2021, 12.04.2021, 10.06.2021 and 06.08.2021 for an amount of Rs.26,922/- which is totally correct and legal. The complainant is liable to deposit the same with the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.             Admittedly, complainant was the user of electricity connection no. 0646524000. The said connection had been allotted to Sudhir Chauhan, who had expired.

11.           OP has taken a plea that complainant is not a consumer and he has already sold the said chamber. Said fact has not been denied by the complainant. But complainant submits that the disputed bills for the period when he was using the said connection. So, he is a consumer of the OP.

12.           It is evident from the electricity bills Ex.OP2 to OP9, from 23.10.2018 to 21.12.2020, outstanding amount is going on and complainant has not cleared the outstanding bills. The complainant had enjoyed the electricity without paying the outstanding amount. Thus, OP has issued the bills as per actual consumption. Moreover, the complainant had sold the said chamber to other Advocate. Hence the complainant is also not consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

13.           Thus, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:17.05.2023                                                                     

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)                        

      Member                        Member