BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.30/17.
Date of instt.: 20.01.2017.
Date of Decision: 22.08.2017.
Satpal age about 45 years, S/o Sh. Ramkala, R/o Village Munna Rehri, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sub Division ‘O.P.’, Pundri, Tehsil Pundri, Distt. Kaithal through its S.D.O., ‘O.P’.
- Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Secretary, Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. B.S.Mor, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Karan Gaur, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he was the consumer of Ops vide electricity connection bearing account No.KQ-17/1357 and was paying the bills regularly. It is alleged that the complainant went to Kurukshetra in the year 2011 and was living in Kurukshetra till 2016. It is further alleged that the complainant gave an application on 02.11.2011 to the Ops to disconnect the electricity connection but the Ops lingered on the mater on one pretext or the other. It is further alleged that the complainant again gave another application on 15.05.2012 to the Ops to disconnect the said electricity connection and the officials of Ops gave a report on this application. It is further alleged that the complainant also deposited the electricity charges as per actual consumption of electricity meter i.e. Rs.1545/- on 18.05.2012. It is further alleged that the officials of Ops disconnected the electricity connection and removed the meter from the house of complainant. It is further alleged that now the complainant received a notice dt. 03.12.2016 for an amount of Rs.18,941/- from the Ops. The said notice 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 reply 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 connection in dispute was installed/issued in the name of complainant. The complainant never asked the answering Op No.1 to disconnect the connection in dispute rather he failed to pay the charges for the consumption of electricity since April, 2012 and as such, in the month of December, 2016, the answering Op No.1 vide notice claimed an amount of Rs.18,941/- from the complainant. The said amount demanded by the Ops is legal and valid. 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.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and Mark-C1 to Mark-C3 and closed evidence on 23.05.2017. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and closed evidence on 06.07.2017.
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 was the consumer of Ops vide electricity connection bearing account No.KQ-17/1357 and was paying the bills regularly. He further argued that the complainant went to Kurukshetra in the year 2011 and was living in Kurukshetra till 2016. He further argued that the complainant gave an application on 02.11.2011 to the Ops to disconnect the electricity connection but the Ops lingered on the mater on one pretext or the other. He further argued that the complainant again gave another application on 15.05.2012 to the Ops to disconnect the said electricity connection and the officials of Ops gave a report on this application and the complainant also deposited the electricity charges as per actual consumption of electricity meter i.e. Rs.1545/- on 18.05.2012. He further argued that the officials of Ops disconnected the electricity connection and removed the meter from the house of complainant. He further argued that now the complainant received a notice dt. 03.12.2016 for an amount of Rs.18,941/- from the Ops and the said notice is wrong and illegal. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Ops argued that the complainant never asked the Op No.1 to disconnect the connection in dispute rather he failed to pay the charges for the consumption of electricity since April, 2012 and as such, in the month of December, 2016, the Op No.1 vide notice claimed an amount of Rs.18,941/- from the complainant. He further argued that the said amount demanded by the Ops is legal and valid.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the dispute between the parties is that according to complainant, he went to Kurukshetra in the year 2011 and was living there and he requested the Ops several times for disconnection of domestic electricity connection but the Ops did not do so and now they issued a notice for an amount of Rs.18,941/-, which is wrong and illegal. The Ops have taken the plea in the reply that the complainant never asked the Ops to disconnect the connection in question. To rebut the contention of Ops, the complainant has placed on file the copy of application dt. 02.11.2011, Mark-C1 and another application dt. 15.05.2012, Mark-C2 written to S.D.O., Pundri regarding P.D.C.O. of domestic electricity connection. On the said application dt. 15.05.2012, Mark-C2, the endorsement is made and the said application is marked by S.D.O., UHBVN, Pundri to Sh. Ram Kumar, J.E. and on the backside of said application, Mark-C3, it is reported by the officials of Ops that the meter is O.K. and consumed reading 2731. The complainant also deposited the electricity charges of Rs.1545/- as per actual consumption of electricity meter, the receipt of same, Ex.C1 is placed on file by the complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Ops have failed to explain the reasons that why they did not make the electricity connection as P.D.C.O. despite the above-said representations made by the complainant and therefore, the said amount of Rs.18,941/- demanded by the Ops is illegal and void. Hence, the Ops are deficient in providing services to the complainant.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to waive off the amount of Rs.18,941/- demanded by the Ops vide notice bearing No.44 dt. 03.12.2016. The Ops are also burdened to pay Rs.2,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of order. 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.22.08.2017. (Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
