Haryana

StateCommission

A/445/2019

UHBVNL AND OTHERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

ATUL KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

22 May 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.445 of 2019

                                                Date of the Institution: 03.05.2019

                                                Date of Decision: 22.05.2019

 

 

1.      SDO (OP) Sub Division, UHBVNL, City Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

2.      XEN, UHBVNL, Yamuna Nagar.

 

3.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sector 6, Panchkula through its Secretary/Managing Director.

 

 

…..Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

VERSUS

 

Atul Kumar son of Shri Inder Sain, resident of Khera Bazar, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

…Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

 

               

                                     

Present:-    Ms. Alka Joshi, counsel for the appellants.

 

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.  

 

          The opposite parties have filed the instant appeal for challenging the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby complaint filed by complainant Atul Kumar under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stood accepted and the opposite parties directed to immediately disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant permanently and to refund the amount of security to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of the order.

2.      According to the complainant, he was having domestic electricity connection against meter account No.Y31JC156005K. He had deposited the last bill of Rs.10,780/- vide DD No.433607 dated 07.11.2016 drawn on Union Bank of India. He then moved an application on 11.11.2016 before the Sub Divisional Officer, requesting to credit Rs.10,780/- in his account and refund security and excess amount deposited by him. The complainant alleged that despite his repeated requests and demands and submitting of application dated 11.11.2016, the opposite parties did not remove the electricity meter from his premises, rather bill of Rs.11,096/- for the period from 16.10.2016 to 16.12.2016 was issued, which was illegal and thereafter, they also continued to raise illegal bill, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, resulting in unnecessary harassment  and mental agony, for which he filed the complaint.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite party filed written version, raising preliminary objections. It was also stated that except submitting of application dated 11.11.2016 for surrendering connection and refund of security, the complainant did not mention regarding permanent disconnection of the electricity connection from his name. Even after 11.11.2016, he was consuming electricity for which the opposite party raised the electricity bill, which the complainant was legally bound to pay.

4.      After hearing learned counsel or the parties and on going through the record, learned District Forum accepted the complaint.

5.      The issue involved in the appeal is whether the complainant was at fault or as to whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service. Admittedly the complainant was consumer of domestic electricity connection. On 11.11.2016 he deposited the bill in the sum of Rs.10,780/-, which fact is also not disputed by the opposite parties. According to the opposite parties in his application dated 11.11.2016 the complainant did not make any prayer that the electricity supply be disconnected.  Accordingly the supply was not disconnected and the complainant continued to consume electricity. Thereafter, various electricity bills were raised by the opposite parties from time to time and as per the final bill he was liable to pay Rs.69,146/-.

6.      The opposite parties admitted receiving of application dated 11.11.2016 subsequent to depositing the bill of Rs.10,780/- vide DD No.433607 dated 07.11.2016. In his application dated 11.11.2016, the complainant did state that the security amount be refunded to him. Refund of security amount would result in permanent disconnection of the electricity supply. Merely because the complainant did not ask for permanent disconnection is no ground to hold that he had no intention to continue consuming the electricity or to seek refund of the security already deposited by him.  Once the complainant had sought refund of the security which fact is not denied by the opposite parties, he could not be required to pay for consuming electricity after 11.11.2016.

7.      In view of the aforementioned, no fault can be found with the decision arrived at by the learned District Forum issuing directions to the opposite parties to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant permanently, immediately and also to refund the amount of security to the complainant.

8.      The appeal is bereft of any merit and, accordingly, dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.3,000/- deposited by the appellants while filing the appeal be disbursed in favour of the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with law and after expiry of the period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

       

Announced 22.05.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

D.R.