Haryana

StateCommission

A/839/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHANDRA KISHORE - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

26 Mar 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 

                                                          First Appeal No.    839 of 2016

Date of Institution:  14.09.2016

Date of Decision:    26.03.2018

 

 

1.      The S.D.O. (OP) Sub-Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Jagadhari, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.

­­­

2.      The Executive Engineer (OP) Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

3.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Chairman/M.D. Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula.

 

 

…..Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Chandra Kishore son of Shri Mansha Ram, resident of House No.6/538, Mohit Vihar, Shree Bhuneshwar Mandir Road, Saharanpur, at present residing at Ganga Nagar Colony, Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

……Respondent-Complainant

 

 

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

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

                  

Present:     Mrs. Alka Joshi, Advocate for appellants.

                   Shri S.K. Tandon, Advocate for respondent.

                  

                            

O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          As per complainant he purchased house from Aarti wife of Om Parkash vide sale deed No.9258 dated 22.01.2013 having electricity connection No.Y31JC/116487F in the name of Om Parkash, as detailed in the complaint. He used to pay electricity bills from 22.02.2013 as per meter reading. As being beneficiary from this connection there was relationship of consumer and service provider in between them. On 11.12.2013 he received bill No.1455 amounting to Rs.70,136/- whereas he was already paying the amount. He requested opposite parties-appellants (in short ‘OPs’) to waive of that amount and issue fresh bill, but, to no use.

2.      In reply it was alleged that Rs.79,791/- were due towards Om Parkash qua an another connection No.JC-11-6487 existing in his name, as detailed in reply. The present connection was also existing in the name of Om Parkash, so that amount could be recovered from the connection allegedly to be used by complainant. Relationship of consumer and service provider was also denied.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (in short ‘District Forum’) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 09.06.2016 directing OPs not to recover the amount in question.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      From the perusal of instruction No.7.3 of the instructions issued by UHBVNL it is clear that arrears can be recovered from another connection of the consumer. As per facts mentioned above it is clear that both the connections are in the name of Om Parkash, so, OPs were having right to recover the amount in question. Complainant should have got the connection transferred in his name just after the purchase of the house, which he has failed to do. Now it cannot be alleged by him that he is not liable to pay any amount. Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration this aspect, so, impugned order dated 09.06.2016 is hereby set aside, complaint is dismissed and the appeal is allowed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

Announced 26.03.2018 D.R.

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member, Addl. Bench

(R.K. Bishnoi) Judicial Member, Addl. Bench