Haryana

Karnal

CC/163/2015

Rattandeep Dhamija S/o Krishan Lal Dhamija - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. S.D.O. Opereation Uttar Haryana Bijali Vitran Nigam Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R.K. Kamra

10 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.163 of 2015

                                                         Date of instt. 22.07.2015

                                                         Date of decision:10.01.2018

 

Rattandeep Dhamija son of Sh. Krishan Lal Dhamija resident of Gali no.3, Shanti Nagar, Karnal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1. S.D.O. Operation, Ram Nagar, UHBVNL, situated at Prem Nagar, Karnal.

2. XEN, City Division, UHBVNL, Karnal.

3. S.C.Operation, UHBVN, Karnal.

4. Chief Engineer, Operation, UHBVN, Sector-5, Panchkula.

                                         

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Ms. Veena Rani ………..Member.

      Sh. Anil Sharma………Member

             

 

 Present  Shri R.K. Kamra Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Sanjeev Kamboj Advocate for OPs.

            

               

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that he was owner of house situated at Gali no.3, Shanti Nagar, Karnal. Electricity connection was installed in the said premises in the name of Basu Ram vide no.RN 26-1499-0 Old A/C no.LR42 4648. Complainant was consuming the electricity of the said connection and paying the bills regularly. Since he was used the abovesaid electricity connection and paying the bills, so he was consumer of OPs. He received a bill dated 12.8.2014 of Rs.4964/- for the period 27.5.2014 to 23.7.2014 and the last date for payment of bill was 29.8.2014. He deposited the said bill at the authorized cash counter in the office of OP no.1 situated at Prem Nagar Karnal which was duly stamped and signed by the cashier of OPs on duty at that time. The cashier recorded the page and serial number on the bill after receiving the amount and issuing the receipt of the amount. He received a bill dated 13.12.2014 for the period 23.9.2014 to 23.11.2014, which shows the arrears to the tune of Rs.8385. He enquired about the matter and asked OP no.1 as how excess bill issued. The official of OP no.1 after checking the record told that he had not deposited the bill for the month of August to October, 2014 which included in the bill of Rs.8383/- while he deposited the amount of Rs.4964 in the month of August. Officials of the OPs assured him that the matter will be solved and in the meantime he deposited the current electricity charges, but despite repeated requests the amount and interest/penalty has not been deducted/adjusted in his account. Thereafter, in the bill dated 1.5.2015 for the month of January, 2015 to April 2015 showing the arrears to the tune of Rs.8157/-. He again requested the OP no.1 to rectify the bill but OP no.1 refused to rectify the bill inspite of proper receipt of the payment. Due to this act and conduct of the OPs he suffered a lot of harassment. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi and cause of action; jurisdiction and complainant has not come with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts. On merits, it has been submitted that OP sent a bill dated 12.8.20145 for Rs.4964/- for the period 27.5.2014 to 23.7.2014 and the last date of payment was 29.8.2014. The complainant never deposited the said bill in the office of OP. The receipt of the bill of the said amount is not belonging to the office of OP and is false and forged documents. As per record available in the office of the OP there was no deposit of the amount in question hence t he OP is not entitled for said amount with interest and surcharge accrued thereon. It has further been submitted that since the bill of Rs.4964/- has not been deposited hence the OP rightly issued the next bill after debited the said amount in the next bill of the OP. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on 29.3.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Manik SDO Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 6.10.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant has an electricity connection at his house in the name of Basu Ram, vide no.-RN 26-1499-0 Old Account no.LR 42-4648 and the bill dated 12.8.2014 for Rs.4964/- for the period from 27.5.2014 to 23.7.2014 was issued by the OPs..

7.             The dispute between the parties is that according to complainant he deposited the said amount of Rs.4964/- at the authorized cash counter in the office of OP no.1 and inspite of deposit, said amount has been added by the OPs in the next bill, whereas according to the OPs, the complainant has not deposited the same, so the same is added in the next bill.

8.             To prove his allegations, the complainant produce in his evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12. The relevant documents are Ex.C-1 the copy of disputed bill as well as the original bills Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-12.

9.             The complainant alleges that he deposited the said amount of Rs.4964/-, so the onus to prove the same was on the complainant. To prove the same the complainant produced copy of bill Ex.C-1 which bears a stamp of some date of August, 2014 on front side with some initial and on the back with initial of someone with underneath figure 4964. The complainant produced the original bills Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-12 and from these bills it is very much clear that the bottom portion of the bill (which was for the department) was folded and receipts were issued and the bottom portion was detached. The amount of these receipts have been accounted for by the OPs. The bill in question i.e. Ex.C-1 did not bear such type of receipt of the amount of the bill, therefore, the abovementioned writing on Ex.C1 cannot be treated a receipt for the payment of the amount in question. The complainant has not produced any other receipt regarding the deposit of the amount of Rs.4964/- vide which it can be proved that the complainant has paid the same. From these facts, it is clear that the complainant has not deposited the said amount of Rs.4964/- with the OPs. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove that he had deposited the alleged amount of Rs.4964/-. Thus, we are of the considered view that the OPs have committed no mistake in adding the said amount in the next bill of the complainant. Hence the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OPs.

10.           It is also pertinent to mention here that the electricity connection is in the name of one Basu Ram as admitted by the complainant in his complaint. In what capacity he is using the said connection and what is the relation of the complainant with said Basu Ram has not been proved on the file. The complainant has also not proved on the file that how he is covered under the definition of consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. In these circumstances of the case, in our view the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs, hence the present complaint is not maintainable. 

11.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 10.1.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                       (Veena Rani)     (Anil Sharma)

                            Member             Member