BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.200/17.
Date of instt.:25.07.2017.
Date of Decision:29.11.2018.
Aditya Kirti Aggarwal s/o Shri R.P. Aggarwal, r/o House No.129/5, Mohalla Khushal Majri, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Sub Divisional Officer (OP), Sub Division Kaithal X-41, City Kaithal. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Kaithal.
- Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Secretary.
……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Jagmal Singh, President.
Shri Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Shri Deepak Seth, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Balbir Bansal, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is having an electric connection bearing meter No.2122103UKZ991153 and account No.3407222222 in his name which is installed at his plot. It is further alleged that he enhanced the electricity connection from 2 KW to 12 KW over the said plot and deposited the requisite security as well as ancillary expenses, but due to some unavoidable circumstances, the plan of raising construction is/was postponed for sometime. It is further alleged that in the month of August 2016, the OPs sent a bill of Rs.2,05,047/- showing an consumption of electricity of Rs.28,938.54 for the consumption of 3419 units for period of 20.6.2016 to 20.8.2016 as well as depicting an amount of Rs.1,76,076.86 as well as after charging surcharge on the same. It is further alleged that he got astonished to attain the aforesaid bill and immediately approached the OPs and made complaint explaining the whole fact of depositing the bills online. It is further alleged that the OPs disconnected the said connection after taking the electricity meter with them forcibly and illegally and demanded Rs.50,000/- first to reinstate the said connection. It is further alleged that during the said period, there exist a friction between the DC Kaithal as well as lawyers, due to which on the instructions of DC Kaithal, the officials of OPs refused to do the needful and taking the meter with them kept continuing to send bill even for the month of June 2017 for depicting consumption of 1643 units by hading over a bill of Rs.1,67,299/- including sundry charges. This way, the OPs are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and jurisdiction. On merits, it is further submitted that the complainant already has a load more than 12 KW in the aforesaid premises, but he has taken/sanctioned a formal load i.e. 2 KW from the very beginning and the complainant now making a false story regarding reconstruction of the house to divert the attention of OPs as well as this Forum; that the OPs sent the said bill as per consumption and according to the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, including the remaining arrears of consumption; that the electricity meter was removed from the site as per provisions of Electricity Act and the said connection was restored in the premises of complainant as he gave undertaking and deposit 40% amount of the disputed bill. The rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same. However, when the case was fixed for arguments, the complainant filed an application for leading additional evidence and the said order application is dismissed being not entertainable vide order dt. 25.10.2018 by this Forum.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Mark C1 to Mark C35 and closed the evidence on 07.12.2017. On the other hand, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A; documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and closed the evidence on 30.05.2018.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence available on the file.
5. The ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant enhanced the electricity connection from 2 KW to 12 KW over the said plot, but due to some unavoidable circumstances, the plan of raising construction is/was postponed for sometime. He further argued that in the month of August 2016, complainant got astonished on receipt of a bill of Rs.2,05,047/- showing an consumption of 3419 units of electricity for period of 20.06.16 to 20.08.16 and the amount for the consumption of 3419 units has been shown as Rs.28,938.54 and the total bill for Rs.1,76,076.86. He further argued that due to grudge, the official of OPs disconnected his said connection after taking the electricity meter with them forcibly and illegally. He further argued that during the said period, there exist a friction between the DC Kaithal as well as lawyers, due to which, on the instructions of DC Kaithal, the officials of OPs refused to do the needful and taking the meter with them and kept continuing to send bill even for the month of June 2017 for depicting consumption of 1643 units by handing over a bill of Rs.1,67,299/- including sundry charges. He further argued that taking undue advantage of the need of the complainant, the OPs asked the complainant to deposit Rs.50,000/- and accordingly, the complainant deposited the same for the reinstatement of the electricity connection as well as electric meter. He further argued that after taking the meter with them, the OPs were sending the bill continuously and in the month of June 2017, sent a bill for Rs.1,67,299/-. He further argued that the complainant made requests to the OPs, but to no effect.
6. The ld. counsel for OPs argued that the complainant already has a load more than 12 KW in the aforesaid premises, but he has taken/sanctioned a formal load i.e. 2 KW from the very beginning and the complainant now making a false story regarding reconstruction of the house to divert the attention of OPs as well as this Forum. He further argued that the OPs sent the said bill as per consumption and according to the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, including the remaining arrears of consumption. He further argued that the electricity meter was removed from the site as per provisions of Electricity Act and the said connection was restored in the premises of complainant as the complainant gave undertaking and deposit 40% amount of the disputed bill. He further argued that the complainant has not deposited the previous bill, so the arrear of Rs.1,76,076.86 has been shown in the bill which is clear from the copy of bill Mark C-12 placed on the file by the complainant. He further argued that similarly, in bill Mark C11, there were arrears of Rs.1,55,046.60 which clearly indicates that the complainant has not deposited the previous bill.
7. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, we found that it is not disputed between the parties that the complainant was having an electricity connection bearing account No.3407222222 in his name. It is also not disputed that the complainant got enhanced his electricity connection from 2 KW to 12 KW over the said plot. It is also not disputed that the electric meter has been reinstalled at the premises of the complainant and Rs.50,000/- deposited by him, has been adjusted .
8. The onus to prove his case, was upon the complainant. The complainant mainly referred the copies of bills Mark C11 and Mark C12. On perusal of both these bills Mark C11 and Mark C12, it is clear that previous balance has been shown in both these bills. In bill Mark C12, there was previous arrear of Rs.1,76,076.86 and similarly, in bill Mark C11, there were previous arrear of Rs.1,55,046.60. These facts show that the complainant was in arrears regarding the previous amount of the bill. The bill Mark C12 is for the month of August 2016, whereas, the bill Mark C11 is for the month of October 2016. To show that there was no arrear against the complainant, the production of previous bills and receipts of their payment was necessary, but the complainant has not produced the same. Only the previous bill and the payment regarding the same was the cogent evidence to prove that nothing was due against the complainant. But the complainant has not placed the previous bills and in this way, the complainant held the material evidence. The argument of the complainant that the amount of Rs.28,938.54 for consumption of 3419 units has been shown in Mark C12 is not disputed, but the complainant has failed to prove that the previous arrears of Rs.1,76,076.86 has been paid by him. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove that he had paid the previous arrears of Rs.1,76,076.86. Moreover, the complainant has not produced previous bills on the file, which were necessary to prove that there was no arrear against the complainant. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OPs.
9. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.29.11.2018.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Suman Rana) (Rajbir Singh)
Member. Member.
Present: Shri Deepak Seth, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Balbir Bansal, Advocate for the opposite parties.
Remaining arguments not advanced. On the request of ld. counsel for the parties, case is adjourned to 29.11.2018 for remaining arguments.
Dated:22.11.2018. Member. Member. President.
Present: Shri Deepak Seth, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Balbir Bansal, Advocate for the opposite parties.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even date, the present complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:29.11.2018. Member. Member. President.
