Haryana

Sonipat

CC/302/2014

RAMPHAL S/O DHARAM SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. SDO HVPN,2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HVPN,3. MANAGING DIRECTOR UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.302 of 2014

                                Instituted on:12.11.2014

                                Date of order:16.07.2015

 

Ram Phal son of Dharam Singh resident of Jawahar Nagar, Sardaro Wali Gali, near Gautam School, Sonepat.

                                                     ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.SDO HVPN SII Sub Division, Industrial Area, Sonepat.

2.Asstt. Executive Engineer, HVPN Fazilpur, Sonepat.

3.Managing Director UHBVN Sector 6 Panchkula.

                                                     ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

           Shri Surender Dahiya, Adv. for respondents.

 

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

           D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself the account holder of meter connection (old ) no.NN15-2828H and new IA13-3404. The complainant has further alleged that the respondent has shown wrong and illegal amount of Rs.40650/- in the bill no.02356 dated 9.10.2014. The complainant has alleged this demand of the respondent to be wrong and illegal. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant is defaulter in making the payment of electricity bills as he did not make any payment of bills from 4/12 to 10/14 except Rs.12000/- and due to this, huge outstanding amount is due against the complainant.  The allegations leveled against the respondent is wrong and false and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the  complainant and ld. Counsel for the respondent at length and has gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        The bare perusal of the copy of ledger placed on record by the respondent as R1, itself shows that the complainant has not deposited any electricity charges from 4/12 to 4/13 and thereafter in the month of 6/13, the complainant has deposited a lumpsum amount of Rs.12000/- and thereafter, again till date the complainant has not deposited even a single penny with the respondent against the electricity bills issued to him.  Rather the electricity bills were issued by the department as per consumption.  There is nothing on record which may go to prove that the complainant is regular payee of the electricity bills to the respondent. Rather the respondent has been able to prove that the complainant is a defaulter of the department and he does not deserve any leniency.  We find force in this contention of the respondent and have come to the conclusion that the complainant himself is a defaulter of the department and he has failed to prove any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  Thus, in our view, the present complaint fails and deserves to be dismissed.  Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced: 16.07.2015