BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL
Complaint no.5/17.
Date of instt.: 09.02.2017.
Date of Decision: 26.09.2017.
Sunehar Singh S/o Sh. Nihala, r/o Village Munnarehri, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- S.D.O. Op. S/Division No.2, UHBVN, Pundri, Distt. Kaithal.
- Executive Engineer, Op. Division, UHBVN, Pundri.
- Secretary, UHBVN, Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.
..……..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: Shri Devinder Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Ops. vide electricity connection bearing No.KQ19-1589 and has been paying the bills regularly. It is alleged that the complainant moved an application to Op. No.2 for permanent disconnection of the above-said connection on 05.12.2004 as he was not residing in the said house where the above-said connection was installed. It is further alleged that Amar Singh son of Nihal Singh applied for electricity domestic connection to the Ops and the Ops issued a notice bearing No.11092 dt. 08.03.2016 by making deficiency in issuing connection to the effect that the complainant has to make payment of Rs.38,590/- to the Ops. It is further alleged that the Ops have illegally demanded the alleged amount of Rs.38,590/- from the complainant. It is further alleged that the said Amar Singh s/o Nihal Singh is residing separately from the complainant and the complainant has no concern with the said Amar Singh. 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; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, it is stated that the Ops have rightly demanded the payment of Rs.38,590/- as the complainant is defaulter of the said amount of connection No.KQ-1589 and in this regard, the Ops have already issued show cause notice to the complainant. The other 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 Mark-C1 to Mark-C3 and closed evidence on 09.05.2017. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A; document Ex.R1 and closed evidence on 14.07.2017.
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 having a domestic connection bearing No.KQ19-1589 at his house in village Munnarehri, Distt. Kaithal. He further argued that on 05.12.2004, the complainant moved an application for disconnection of above said connection and the copy of the said application is Mark C-3. He further argued that Amar Singh s/o Nihal Singh, brother of complainant has applied for domestic connection, but the Ops had issued a notice vide No.11092 dated 08.03.2016 that Rs.38,590/- of the Nigam are due against the complainant. He further argued that Ops have wrongly and illegally shown the amount of Rs.38,590/- due against the complainant as the said connection had been permanently disconnected in December 2004.
6. On the other hand, ld. counsel for Ops. argued that Ops. have rightly demanded the payment of Rs.38,590/- as the complainant was defaulter of the said amount in connection bearing No.KQ19-1589. He further argued that the connection in question of the complainant was made Permanent Disconnection Order (hereinafter mentioned as ‘PDCO’) in the year 2016 on the ground of non-payment of bill.
7. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that there is no dispute that the complainant has a domestic connection bearing No.KQ19-1589. The complainant has applied for permanent disconnection vide application dated 05.12.2004 and to support the same, the complainant has placed on file photocopy of the application as Mark C-3. There is an endorsement on the said application Mark C-3 made by the SDO. When the application was marked by the SDO, this means that the complainant has moved the same in the office of Ops. The Ops have not produced any evidence that what action has been taken on the said application. The Ops have placed on file copy of Ledger of the Account Statement of the complainant as Ex.P-1, which shows a balance of Rs.1,23,361/- in the month of February 2016 against the complainant. The Ops have written a letter to the complainant vide No.11092 dated 08.03.2016, wherein, the Ops have shown Rs.38,590/- due against the complainant. The Ops have not placed any copy of the PDCO on the file. According to the Ops, the connection in question of the complainant was made PDCO in the year 2016 on the ground of non-payment of the bill. When the complainant has applied for PDCO on 05.12.2004, then why the same was not done PDCO on said application, the Ops have no explanation for the same. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that Ops have not passed any PDCO on the application dated 05.12.2004 of the complainant, therefore, the Ops are deficient in providing the services to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the Ops were duty bound to permanently disconnected the connection of the complainant on the application dated 05.12.2004 of the complainant, therefore, we are further of the considered opinion that the permanent disconnection of the complainant be deemed to have been passed from 05.12.2004 and hence, the Ops are not entitled to recover any amount after 05.12.2004 and the amount shown due after 05.12.2004 ‘against the complainant, is hereby declared as null and void.
8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to treat the connection bearing No.KQ19-1589 of the complainant to be permanently disconnected on 05.12.2004 and any amount shown due after 05.12.2004 against the complainant be waived off. 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.26.09.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
Present: Shri Devinder Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties.
Arguments heard. Adjourned to 26.09.2017 for pronouncement of order.
Dated: 25.09.2017. Member Member President.
Present: Shri Devinder Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties.
Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated: 26.09.2017. Member Member President.
