BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

Complaint Case No. 131 of 2018.

Date of Instt.:03.05.2018.

Date of Decision:28.02.2019

Aman Deep son of Dharampal, resident of Ward No. 9, Khatik Mohalla, Main Bazar, Ratia, District Fatehabad.

...Complainant

     Versus

1.Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Operation Division, Fatehabad through its Executive Engineer.

2.Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub-Division City, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Ratia, District Fatehabad.

                                                               ..Opposite Parties/ Respondents.

Before:       Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.

                   Dr. Rajni Goyat, Member.

                   Sh.Jasvinder Singh, Member.         

Present:     Sh. R.D. Gijroiya, Advocate for the Complainant.

                    Sh. Dushyant Gera, Advocate for the Ops.

ORDER

                    The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that there is an electric connection bearing account no. MT-21/2180 installed at Ratia in the name of Sumit Mongia but the complainant has been using the said electricity connection and has been making payment of all the electricity bills regularly and there is nothing due against the complainant in respect of the said electricity connection and as such the complainant is consumer of the Ops as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                It is further submitted that the Ops had issued the complainant two notices dated 27.6.2017 through which the Ops had demanded from the complainant a sum of Rs.1,35,754/- and Rs.25,000/- on account of loss in the Nigam and for the purpose of compounding the offence.  The said notice was challenged by the complainant in a Civil Suit and the same was decided by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ratia vide order dated 22.12.2017 on the basis of a compromise and the complainant made a payment of Rs.92,880/- on 29.12.2017.

3.                It is further submitted that the respondents have now issued a bill payable upto 27.4.2018 for a sum of Rs.1,00,193/- and the Ops have already disconnected the connection of the complainant  regularly and illegally without giving any notice to the complainant.  It is further submitted that the abovesaid bill issued by the Ops is against law, against facts, without affording any opportunity of hearing and as such the same is liable to be set aside.  The complainant is entitled to get the abovesaid electricity connection reconnected.  It is further submitted that the complainant has repeatedly requested the Ops to treat the abovesaid bill payable on 27.4.2018 as null and void and to re-connect immediately the electricity connection, but all in vain.  The abovesaid act on the part of Ops amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant and as such the complainant is also entitled for compensation.

4.                It is further prayed that the present complaint may be accepted and the impugned bill dated 27.4.2018 may kindly be ordered to be declared null and void and the complainant may also be awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation.  Hence, the present complaint.

5.                On being served the Ops appeared through counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, suppression of true and correct facts etc. have been raised.

6.                In reply on merits, it is submitted that the electricity connection in question was disconnected on 10.3.2017 vide PDCO no. 26/243 on account of non-payment of the electricity bill as there was a sum of Rs.88,800/- outstanding against the said electricity connection.  It is further submitted that a checking in respect of the said electricity connection was conducted on 23.6.2017 and during the checking direct supply from the main PVC was found and on the basis of said checking notice dated 27.6.2017 was issued to the complainant and he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,154/- and Rs.25,000/- to the Nigam for the purpose of loss and have compounding the offence.  The said notice was challenged by the complainant in Civil Court at Ratia and same was decided vide order dated 12.12.2017 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ratia on the basis of compromise between the parties.  It is further submitted that electricity connection in question was disconnected on 10.3.2017 on account of non-payment of the electricity bill as an amount of Rs.88,800/- was outstanding against the abovesaid electricity connection and as such there is no illegality in the disconnection of the electricity connection of the complainant.  The bill issued by the Ops is quite correct in all respects and there is no illegality in the same.  The complainant is liable to make the payment of the abovesaid bill and the Ops are entitled to recover the same.  There is no deficiency on the part of Ops in rendering service to the complainant in the present case and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7.                The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith the documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-14.  On the other hand, Ashok Pannu SDO DHBVN Ratia tendered his affidavit in evidence as Annexure RW1/A.  The Ops also tendered in evidence the documents as Annexure R-2 to Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence of the Ops.

8.                The learned counsel for the complainant in his arguments reiterated the averments made in the complaint and further contended that the matter regarding the notices bearing memos no. H43/2017/1040 and H43/2017/1041 dated 27.6.2017 vide which an amount of Rs.1,35,754/- and Rs.25,000/- was demanded by the Ops was compromised between the parties and a payment of Rs.92,880/- was made by the complainant on 29.12.2017.  Therefore, the matter was compounded.  The learned counsel further contended that since the abovesaid matter was compounded and as such the electricity bill no. 619 payable upto 27.4.2018 for a sum of Rs.1,00,193/- issued by the Ops is against law as the matter has already been compounded.

9.                On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops contended that the bill no. 619 payable upto 27.4.2018 issued to the complainant is of the energy consumed by him and the same is perfectly in order and sustainable in the eyes of law.  Since the electricity bill is of the energy consumed by the complainant and as such he is liable for making payment of the same.  The learned counsel further prayed that the present complaint is without any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10.             We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record.  From perusal of the record, it is revealed that the electricity connection in question was disconnected by the Ops on 10.3.2017 vide PDCO no.  26/243 on account of non-payment of the electricity bill as there was a sum of Rs.88,800/- due and outstanding against the said electricity connection.  From perusal of the record, it is also established that on 23.6.2017 the said electricity connection was checked by the officials of the Ops and during checking it was found that there was direct supply of electricity from the main PVC and as such the complainant was found committing theft of the electricity.  On the basis of abovesaid checking notices dated 27.6.2017 were issued to the complainant and he was directed for making a payment of Rs.1,35,754/- and Rs.25,000/-.  Thereafter, the abovesaid notices were challenged by the complainant in the Court of Hon’ble Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ratia and the same was withdrawn by the complainant on the basis of compromise with the Ops as the matter was compounded and a payment of Rs.92,880/- was made by the complainant.  Therefore, the penalty on account of committing theft of the electricity was compounded by the complainant. We are of the considered opinion that the complainant is bound to make payment of the energy consumed by him prior to 10.3.2017 when PDCO was issued as the same was not an issue in the matter which was compounded.  The bill no. 619 payable upto 27.4.2018 issued to the complainant is of the energy consumed by the complainant and as such he is liable to make payment of the same.  Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops in rendering service to him.  The present complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.   A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum:   

Dated:28.02.2019

                                                                     (Raghbir Singh)                                                                                            President,                                                                                                          District Consumer Disputes

   (Jasvinder Singh)          (Rajni Goyat)        Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.

     Member                         Member