Haryana

Sonipat

330/2014

HARI OM DHAM SHANTI DHAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. UTTAR HARYANA BIJII PRASARAN NIGAM LTD,2. THE HUNIOR ENG. OFFICER - Opp.Party(s)

J.K. MORODIA

18 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.330 of 2014

                                Instituted on:02.12.2014

                                Date of order:18.09.2015

 

Hari Om Shanti Dhan at Karewari through its President Anand Singh Chhikara village Karewari, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

 

                                                     ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.UHBVN Ltd. through its Executive Engineer Rural Areas, Sonepat.

2.The JE office at village Bhatgaon distt. Sonepat UHBVN Ltd.

                                    

                                                     ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri JK Marodia, Adv. for complainant.

           Shri Baljeet Khatri, 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 to be the consumer of the respondent. It is also submitted that the payment of the bills were regularly made by the said Ashram till the year 2006-07 and in the said year, the Ashram was shifted and there was no need of using electricity energy and thus, the respondents were requested to disconnect the electricity supply, but of no use.  In 2/08, the complainant gave written application to the respondent about non-using of premises and non-using of electricity energy.  But the respondents continued issued false and bogus bills to the complainant.  The complainant again moved a written application on 18.2.2014 to disconnect the electricity supply, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that the complainant never approached the respondents for disconnection of electricity connection and no such application has ever been moved to the respondents in this regard.  Now a bill of Rs.24350/- is outstanding against the complainant upto 5/2015 and the complainant is legally liable to pay the same to the respondents.

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

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complainant never approached the respondents for disconnection of electricity connection and no such application has ever been moved to the respondents in this regard.  Now a bill of Rs.24350/- is outstanding against the complainant upto 5/2015 and the complainant is legally liable to pay the same to the respondents.

          But on the contrary, the complainant has moved an application bringing into the knowledge of the respondents that the Ashram has been shifted and there was no need of using electricity energy and thus, the respondents were requested to disconnect the electricity supply, but of no use.

          In the present case, three affidavits i.e. Ex.CW1 of the complainant Anand Singh Chhikara, Ex.CW2 Dayanand Dahiya,  Ex.CW3 Jai Kanwar Marodia are available on the case file.  The perusal of the case file further shows that on 18.2.2008, the complainant again moved an application and informed the respondents that he earlier was regularly depositing the bills, but now the Ashram has been closed for the last more-than two years and meter is also not working properly and it was also requested to the respondents to charge the complainant on minimum charges basis due to non-use of electricity connection of the Ashram.    But despite this, no action was taken by the respondents on the requests of the complainant and they constantly kept on issuing the bills to the complainant, whereas no reading was taken by the official of the respondents.  Similarly, another application was moved by the complainant on 18.2.2014 which is available on the case file as Ex.C2 and the same request was again made by the complainant for disconnection of the electricity connection, but the same was not disconnected by the respondent.  Moreover on 17.11.2014, the meter was removed by the complainant from the Ashram and was handed over in the office of the respondents vide application dated 17.11.2014.  This meter was received by the JE Ist Sub Division Bhatgaon and receiving of meter was also given. 

          The perusal of the case file further shows that in the year 2013, a bill amounting to Rs.7761/- was issued by the department which is C4.  Another bill dated 9.10.2014 was issued to the complainant for Rs.20104/-.  The respondents also placed on record the copy of ledger which is R1.  In the month of 5/14, the bill amounting to rTs.10951/- was issued to the complainant.  But the perusal of the ledger shows that in the month of July, 2014, bill for Rs.18666/- was issued.  In our view, there is a clerical mistake in this bill.  Units consumed has been shown as 160.  But prior to these bills, the complainant has moved an application in the month of 2/14.  So, after 2/14, the respondents wrongly issued the bills to the complainant.  The electricity bill C4 was issued by the department for an amount of Rs.7761/-.  In our view,  there is a deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, because even after receiving the applications, the respondents failed to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant and further they kept on issuing the bills to the complainant after Feb/2014.   In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to both the parties.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the complainant to deposit Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousands) in lumpsum with the respondents and the respondents are also directed to accept the said amount from the complainant and not to charge any other amount from the complainant in future.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.

          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: 18.09.2015