Haryana

StateCommission

A/640/2015

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMARJIT SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT DHEER

28 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                       

First Appeal No.640 of 2015

Date of Institution:03.06.2015

/30.07.2015

Date of Decision:28.04.2016

 

S.D.O., sub-Division No.4, DHBVN Faridabd, Haryana.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

Sh.Amarjit Singh, R/o H.No.710, Sector 21 A Faridabad, Haryana

         …..Respondent

CORAM:     Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-     Mr.Rohit Dheer, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Amarjit Singh respondent in person.

 

O R D E R

 

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI MEMBER:

 

1. S.D.O, Sub- Division No.4, Dakshin Haryana Bijali Vitran Nigam Ltd. (DHBVNL), Faridabad - appellant is in appeal against the Order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Faridabad, whereby the complaint of Amarjit Singh - Complainant has been allowed and the OPs have been directed to adjust the amount of Rs.45484/- in the future electricity charges bill of the complainant.
2. In brief, the complainant purchased three phase meter form the market due to non availability of meter with DHBVNL stores alongwith test report. On 22.01.2002, previous meter was removed from the premises of the complainant without his consent and the removed meter was never returned back to him.  The current meter was installed atleast 100FT away from his residence on the main road. The OP was charged Rs.40/- toward the rent of the meter from him whereas the meter was actually purchased by him and was given to the DHBVNL. The checking team informed him that one phase of the meter was stopped, but it was not his fault since he had no technical knowledge of the same and his bill was issued for the electricity consumed and the same was paid before the due date on regular basis. On the basis of the third phase stopped, a demand notice of Rs.45484/- has been issued to me and thereafter he had paid the amount of Rs.45484/-, keeping in view the abstract of the DHBVNL notice to avoid any further complication. The complainant alleged that he had paid the amount under protest as the OP had given only seven days to pay the amount with a threatening letter do disconnect the electricity connection, if not paid. The demand notice was challenged by the complainant before the District Forum, being illegal and outcome of deficiency in service of the OPs.
3. Justifying their action, the OPs pleaded that the electricity meter of the complainant was checked by the checking team and the R phase was found dead stop and was not recording the units of electricity consumed on R Phase, as such the meter was recording 1/3^rd less consumption than actually consumed by the complainant. According to the OP, the account of the complainant had been overhauled and OP issued a demand notice dated 26.10.2010 of Rs.45485/- and the complainant deposited the same on 03.11.2010. The plea of the OP was rejected and the learned District Forum allowed the complaint on 09.12.2014.
4. Against the impugned order dated 09.12.2014, the OP/ appellant has filed appeal before us reiterating their submissions raised before the District Forum.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
6. It is evident from the record that on 30.10.2010, the complainant Amarjit Singh entered into a full and final settlement of the demand as raised by the appellant vide their memo dated 26.10.2010.  In this demand notice the appellants had asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.45485/- and it was this liability of the complainant which he admitted and by depositing this amount fully and finally settled the claim of the appellant.  Having done so voluntarily, the complainant could not escape his liability now by withdrawing his action of depositing the amount demanded by the complainant. In view of this categorical evidence and documented and signed by the complainant, the plea raised by him is wholly untenable. The relevant extract from the letter written and duly signed by the complainant is reproduced below:-

“Reg:Notice of short assessment bearing A/c No.BB12/1921 (LL1NO.022/1990 dated 25.10.2010).

This is with reference to your memo No.7656 dated 26.10.2010, received by hand on 28.10.2010, on the subject.  I am enclosing herewith Bank Draft No.188925 dated 30.10.2010 for Rs.45485/- issued by State Bank of India, PBB Sector 16, Faridabad in settlement in full and final against your above notice/memo.

Also I am enclosing herewith test report in original of sanctioned load for regularization.

Thanking you and acknowledgement the receipt of the above.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Amarjit Singh)

Encl:as above.”

7. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed, the impugned order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the learned District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant-Amarjit Singh is dismissed with no order as to costs.

8.         The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and verification.

 

April 28th, 2016                      Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                   Member                                               Judicial Member                                              Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.