Haryana

StateCommission

A/371/2014

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ashok Makkar - Opp.Party(s)

B D Bhatia

18 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.371 of  2014

Date of the Institution: 09.05.2014

Date of Decision: 18.08.2016

 

1. UHBVNL, Sub Division, Model Town, Sonepat.
2. UHBVNL, Power House, Fazilpur, Sonepat through Xen, Sonepat.

                                                                                      .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Ashok Makkar s/o Sukhdyal r/o H.No.218, Sikka Colony, Sonepat.

 

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.B.D.Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants.

                    Mr.Gagan Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                   It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased house No.1166, Sector 14 Sonipat from T.S.Rathi, approximately one and half years back (from the filing of the complaint i.e. on 11.07.2013). At that time one three phase connection with account No.PS550 and one single phase meter with account No.PS1111 were existing. He was not using property at that time. Connection of account No.PS550 was permanently disconnected whereas he used to pay bills regularly because amount used to be very less. He was under impression that he could get the connection restored when he would start using the house. Three phase meter having account No.PS550 used to show consumption though no load was connected to it. OPs/appellants used to send bills on minimum usage basis. Vide bill issued in November, 2012 for cycle of September-November 2012, consumption of 3717 units was shown, whereas in the previous month the consumption was zero. He approached OPs to look into the matter, but, another bill was issued in the month of January, 2013 vide which units consumed were shown as 8252, whereas premises was not in use at that time. In the month of March, 2013 another bill was issued showing consumed units as 3667 whereas the meter was already removed and single phase meter with account No.PS1111 was in use. OPs demanded Rs.1,15,814/- vide memo No.199 dated 27.06.2011 which was altogether wrong. OPs be directed to give relief as detailed below:

1. To withdraw the memo No.199 dated 27.06.2013;
2. To correct the bill issued on 11.05.2013 to minimum usage basis being  no load was connected to the meter under account No.PS550;
3. To not to merge the amount of PS550 in the account of PS1111 illegally;
4. To restore the supply of the connection under PS1111 account immediately;
5. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000.00 to the complainant for deficiency in service;
6. To pay litigation amount of Rs.10,000/- .” 

2.                OPs filed reply controverting his averments and alleged in preliminary objections that electricity connection is in the name of P.S.Rathi and complainant had not applied for the change of name in the records. He was not their consumer and this complaint was not covered by Consumer Protection Act  of 1986 (in short C.P.Act). Objections about accruing cause of action and jurisdiction etc. were also raised.  On merits, it was also admitted that two connections were existing in the premises, as mentioned above. The connection No.PS550 was permanently disconnected on 09.01.2013 vide PDCO No.21/607 showing reading of 28109. After PDCO meter was sent to M&T lab, Karnal.  As per report the same was found OK and there was no defect in the meter. There was no reason of fluctuation. The units consumed were rightly shown in the bills. Surcharge etc. were also charged as per instructions issued by the department time and again. Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.                          After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (in short District Forum) allowed complaint vide order dated 13.03.2014 on the ground that M&T lab report was not produced before them.

4.                          Feeling aggrieved therefrom OPs preferred this appeal.

5.                          Arguments heard. File perused.

6.                          Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that at the time of removal of the meter his (complainant’s) signatures were not obtained. In the previous month meter was showing consumption as Zero. There is no explanation about sudden increase in the consumption. Learned District Forum rightly came to the conclusion that OPs were not entitled to recover Rs.1,15,814 from him and allowed the complaint.  The appeal has no merits and same be dismissed.

7.                          This argument is devoid of any force. As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that account No.PS550 is in the name of P.S.Rathi. Notice Ex.R6 dated 27.06.2016 was sent to P.S.Rathi to deposit the disputed amount. It has nowhere come that complainant ever requested to transfer connection in his name or any bill was ever issued to him. Complainant has not produced any evidence about purchase or ownership of this house.  In this way, he is not a consumer and has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It was P.S.Rathi who could be aggrieved from this notice and he should have come forward.

8.                          Be that as it may, even if complainant is presumed as consumer for the arguments sake, he has no legs to stand even on merits.  Learned District Forum allowed complaint only on the ground that report was not on the file. OPs produced report Ex.R3 issued by JE M&T lab wherein it is specifically mentioned that the accuracy of meter was found OK. When the report is there, the complainant cannot escape from the payment. The request of complainant cannot be allowed on the ground that his signatures were not obtained on the report because as per his own averments, the house in question was not used by him, so how it was possible to obtain his signatures.  In notice Ex.R6, it is mentioned that nobody came out even when the door was knocked and that is why notice was affixed thereupon. Even otherwise, complainant did not raise this objection in the complaint. This story has been introduced for the first time at the time of arguments. It is well settled proposition of law that a party cannot go beyond pleadings. In copy of ledger Ex.R2, consumption of units is clearly mentioned. If in previous month it was zero, it does not mean that in the subsequent months consumer cannot use the meter. In the previous month, consumer may be consuming the electricity from other connection. The bills Annexures 2 & 3 were issued in the month of March and May, 2013 but complainant did not come forward against them. He rushed to file this complaint when notice Ex.R6 was issued as per instructions mentioned in Ex.R4 and schedule of tariff for supply of electricity, Ex.R5.  There is already another connection No.PS-1111 in this premises.  The connection No.PS550  was permanent disconnected on 09.01.2013 vide PDCO No.21/607 with reading as 28109 and thereafter meter was sent to M&T lab Karnal and bill of Rs.1,15,814/- was rightly issued. The O.Ps. have legal right to transfer the amount to other account No.PS-1111, which was already installed in P.S.Rathi’s name. All these facts falsify the version of the complainant and show that appellants are having every right to recover the amount in question. Findings of learned District Forum are altogether against law and facts and cannot be sustained. Resultantly, impugned order dated 13.03.2014 is set aside. The appeal is allowed and the complaint is dismissed.

 

August, 18th 2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan,   Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.