BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.34 of 2019.
Date of institution: 07.02.2019.
Date of decision:14.01.2020.
Om Pati aged about 61 years wife of Karam Singh, resident of Village Rasina, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- S.D.O., UHBVN, S/D No.II, Pundri, Distt. Kaithal.
- XEN UHBVN, S/D No.II, Pundri, Distt. Kaithal.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. B.S.Mor, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Karan Gaur, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the husband of complainant is owner of one shop situated in Mor, Village Rasina, Distt. Kaithal. It is alleged that earlier in the year 2012 the complainant applied for getting electricity connection and deposited the security amount of Rs.2600/- but the Ops did not release the electricity connection to the complainant. In the year 2014, the complainant again deposited the security amount of Rs.2625/- on the asking of Ops and the Ops released the electricity connection on the shop of complainant. It is further alleged that on 15.01.2019 the officials of Ops visited the premises of complainant and asked to deposit an amount of Rs.37,569/- against electricity bearing account No.KQ15/5759 which is pending towards the complainant of her old connection. It is further alleged that the Ops installed only one connection in her shop bearing No.KQ15-5932-F, so, the question of outstanding amount against the connection No.KQ15-5759 does not arise. The said demand of Ops amounting to Rs.37,569/- is wrong and illegal. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that in the month of June, 2012 the complainant applied for electricity connection under non-domestic category (NDS) vide application bearing No.23276 at her premises. The aforesaid application for electricity connection was duly processed by the office of answering Op No.1 and the electricity connection bearing No.KQ-15/5759 was installed at her premises vide Service Connection Order (SCO) No.32/115 dt. 08.06.2012 effected on 18.06.2012 with contracted load of 1 K.W. Lateron, the aforesaid connection bearing No.KQ-15/5759 was permanently disconnected vide Permanent Disconnection Order (PDCO) No.79/167 dt. 03.12.2018 effected in the month of January, 2019 on account of default inn payment of arrears of electricity charges of Rs.73,954/- by the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that meanwhile, the complainant also applied for another electricity connection under Non Domestic Category (NDS) vide application bearing No.26719 at her another premises. The aforesaid application was also duly processed by the Ops and electricity connection bearing No.KQ-15/5932 was installed at her premises vide Service Connection Order (SCO) No.33/661 dt. 08.06.2015 effected on 17.06.2015 with contracted load of 1 K.W. In the year 2019, a scheme for giving relaxation to the consumer like complainant who committed default in payment of their electricity bills was floated by the Nigam wherein the consumers like complainant were given opportunity to deposit defaulting amount and as such, the complainant was also informed by the Ops vide letter dt. 15.01.2019 to avail benefit of scheme and to settle her defaulting amount with Nigam by paying the amount of Rs.37,569/- instead of actual amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. From the pleadings of the complainant, the complainant has challenged the notice dt. 15.01.2019 bearing Sr.No.R/S-120 of account No.KQ15-57959 which was issued by the Ops for demanding the amount of Rs.37,569/- as arrears. The Ops have taken the plea that the complainant has applied for a connection in the year 2012 and the same was issued to the complainant and the arrear of consumption amount of old connection was due against the complainant and the same has not been deposited by the complainant and the same was demanded through this notice. On the other hand, the complainant contended that in fact the complainant has applied for electricity connection in the year 2012 but the same has not been issued to the complainant. To decide this controversy, this Forum has given the direction to Ops to place on record both the original files i.e. old connection bearing No.KQ15-5759 which was issued in the year 2012 alongwith the consumption data since the date of connection i.e. 2012 upto date and the other original file bearing connection No.KQ-15/5932 which was issued in the year 2015. Perusal of file bearing connection No.KQ15-5759 application No.23276 dt.11.06.2012 as-well-as the consumption data, there is average bill shown in the consumption data. No reading is shown in the consumption data even the Ops have not placed on file the consumption data for the period 2012 to 2014. The complainant has also got new connection in the year 2015. Perusal of the file, it is clear that the Ops have issued the first connection vide SCO No.32/115 dt. 08.06.2012 with connected load of 1 KW. Lateron the aforesaid connection was disconnected vide PDCO No.79/167 dt. 03.12.2018. It is also clear that the complainant has also applied for the another connection in the year 2015 and it was issued on 08.06.2015 effected on 17.06.2015 with connected load of 1 KW. In the year 2019, the Ops have issued a notice Annexure-R3 for the payment of Rs.37,569/- against the old connection bearing No.KQ15-5759. The complainant contended in her complaint that the Ops have not issued the connection to the complainant in the year 2012 after depositing the security and she again applied for the connection in the year 2015 praying for adjusted the old security. Now the main grievance of the complainant is that the letter/notice dt. 15.01.2019 as per Annexure-R3 issued by the Ops to deposit the amount of Rs.37,569/- is null and void and not sustainable in the eyes of law. After perusal of the previous file as-well-as statement of account, it is clear that the Ops have not issued any single bill to the complainant according to consumption data placed on files. We are of the view that when the complainant applied for another connection in the same premises, then the Ops are duty bound to firstly ask to the complainant to deposit the old arrear, then they can issue the new connection as per Nigam rules but they did not do so. So, we are of the considered view that it is a only paper transaction because in fact this connection was not issued to the complainant and they have straightway prepared the consumption data and they have send the notice of Rs.37,569/- to the complainant. The above-said notice is not sustainable because the Ops kept mum since 2012 to 2019 before issuing the notice of Rs.37,569/- pertaining to old connection. Perusal of the old file bearing connection No.KQ15-5759 pertaining to the year 2012, it came to our notice that the service connection order (S.C.O.) has been shown issued on 08.06.2012, the application for releasing the connection was given by the complainant on 11.06.2012 and the security of Rs.2370/- has been deposited on the same day but the S.C.O. was issued before depositing the security as-well-as application. How it is possible that application for releasing the connection was moved by the complainant on 11.06.2012 whereas, S.C.O. has been shown issued on 08.06.2012 earlier before applying the connection. So, it is clear that the said document is falsely self prepared document and the same seems to be procured one only to save the skin by preparing the such document and the Ops have also prepared the consumption data as per the consumption at the spot, so, it is unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. Whereas, the Ops are duty bound to send the bills according to the consumption data to the complainant every month or bi-monthly basis as per the rules of Nigam. The Ops have failed to serve any bill to the complainant as admitted at the time of arguments by ld. Counsel for the Ops. The official of Ops appeared and stated at bar that they never issued any bill regarding consumption. So, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the notice dt. 15.01.2019 Annexure-R3 against the old connection bearing account No.KQ15/5759 is liable to be quashed. Hence, in view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the complainant is entitled for the costs of litigation charges.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops not to recover the amount of Rs.37,569/- as per notice dt. 15.01.2019 Annexure-R3 against the old connection bearing account No.KQ15/5759 from the complainant and further direct the Ops to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation charges to the complainant. It is fit case to give the direction to the Superintendent of Engineering, Kaithal to hold the enquiry after going through the above-said file bearing account No.KQ15/5759 and to issue the notice to erring officials, those who have prepared the forged documents i.e. SCO No.32/115 dt. 08.06.2012, which is attached with the original file bearing NDS connection No.KQ15-5759, application No.23276 dt. 11.06.2012 within two months after receiving the copy of this order and send the report to this Forum. The Superintendent of Engineering, Kaithal is also directed that after holding the enquiry, he will take the legal action i.e. departmental as-well-as criminal action as per law against the erring officials, those who indulged in preparing the false documents mentioned above. The Assistant of this Forum is directed to return the original files of connection No.KQ15/5759, application No.23276 dt.11.06.2012 and connection No.KQ15/5932, application No.26719 dt. 08.06.2015 to concerned official of UHBVN after taking proper receipt. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order. The Assistant is also directed to send the copy of this order passed by this Forum to the Superintendent of Engineering, Kaithal for compliance. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:14.01.2020.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
