BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.160/15.

Date of instt.: 27.07.2015. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 04.07.2016.

Rajesh Kumar son of Leela Ram, resident of Village Rajaund, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.     

                                        Versus

1. UHBVN (Op) Sub Division Rajaund, through its S.D.O.

2. UHBVN PUndri through XEN.

3. UHBVN, Panchkula, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Secretary.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. R.S.Dhull, 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 applied for domestic connection with the Ops and deposited the security amount of Rs.690/- vide receipt No.191 book No.025253 dt. 09.12.2014.  It is alleged that the complainant visited the office of Ops several times but the Ops did not release the domestic connection to the complainant and told the complainant that he is in arrear of Rs.39,368/- towards connection No.KR12/0724.  The said amount is wrong and illegal.  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 written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the complainant applied for getting the domestic connection on 09.12.2014 and deposited security amount of Rs.690/- vide BA16 No.025253 dt. 09.12.2014.  As per record, the connection bearing account No.KR12/0724 DW was released in favour of complainant on 15.03.2005 vide SCO No.87/4437 and after that billing was started.  As the complainant did not deposit any energy bill and was running defaulter from the date of releasing the connection, so, his connection was disconnected permanently vide PDCO No.100/635 dt. 24.04.2014 at the defaulting amount of Rs.33,424/-.  So, upto the month of December, 2014, the total defaulting amount due towards the complainant was Rs.39,368/-.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.C1/A and documents Ex.C1/B and Mark-CA and closed evidence on 18.01.2016.  On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 and document Ex.R2 and closed evidence on 28.03.2016.  

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 led by the parties.

5.     Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint.  He argued that the complainant applied for domestic connection with the Ops and deposited the security amount but the Ops did not release the domestic connection to the complainant and told the complainant that he is in arrear of Rs.39,368/- towards connection No.KR12/0724.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops controverted all the allegations contained in the complaint.  He argued that as per the direction of this Forum, the S.D.E., UHBVN, Rajound had appeared before this Forum and produced the photo-stat copy of the file of complainant.  He further argued that as per record, the connection bearing account No.KR12/0724 DW was released in favour of complainant on 15.03.2005 vide SCO No.87/4437 and after that billing was started.  He further argued that the complainant did not deposit any energy bill and was running defaulter from the date of releasing the connection, so, his connection was disconnected permanently vide PDCO No.100/635 dt. 24.04.2014 at the defaulting amount of Rs.33,424/-.  So, upto the month of December, 2014, the total defaulting amount due towards the complainant was Rs.39,368/-.  In reply to the argument of ld. Counsel for the Ops, ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the Ops have forged the signature of some person on behalf of complainant on the document regarding release of connection in favour of the complainant.  Neither the complainant nor any other person of the complainant has signed on the document regarding the release of connection in favour of complainant.         

6.     From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the dispute between the parties is that as per complainant, the complainant applied with the Ops for release of domestic electricity connection but the Ops did not release the electricity connection to complainant and the Ops have forged the signature on the document of releasing the connection in his name.  Whereas as per Ops, they released the electricity domestic connection bearing No.KR-12/0724 DS in favour of complainant and the complainant has not deposited the bill and defaulted to the amount of Rs.39,368/-.  So, a complicated issue is involved in the present case that whether the electricity connection in the name of complainant was released or not and whether any person has signed on his behalf or not.  To prove the same, elaborate evidence is required, which is not possible in this time-bound summary proceeding.  The Civil Court is the best platform for deciding the matter in controversy where elaborate and detailed evidence can be produced.  In this context, we are fortified with the observations made in the case titled as Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007(4) CPJ page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission that Complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court.  In case titled as M/s. The Bills through its Proprietor Vs. PNB  reported in 1998(1) CPC page 150, decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, wherein it has been mentioned that Complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.

6.     In view of above discussion, we disposed off the complaint accordingly and the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court or court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted.  No order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.04.07.2016.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.