BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 264 of 2018
Date of Institution : 25.10.2018
Date of Decision : 28.05.2019.
Geeta Rani aged 36 years wife of Sh. Roki Khurana, permanent resident of Rania, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa, now resident of B-5/191 at Purani Committee Wali Gali, Rori Bazar Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Managing Director at Hisar.
- Executive Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, ‘OP’ City Division, Sirsa.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA……………….. PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER.
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Parvinder Gaba, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is residing in a rental house since last one and half years in which, the electricity connection No. SA-03-1089 has already been installed in the name of Pawan Kumar son of Devi Ram and complainant is paying the electricity bill of aforementioned connection regularly without any delay. In this way, complainant is a user and consumer of the ops. It is further averred that op no.2 has served a bill of Rs.59,392/- due date of which is 26.10.2018 and the said bill is totally wrong and has not been issued on regular consumption, so the complainant is not liable to pay the said amount. It is further averred that op no.2 always served the bills on an average gap of two months. However, previous bill of Rs.57,469/- was served after a gap of four months and also not according to the actual consumption of the meter and the arrears shown in the bill is totally wrong and they have also imposed wrong surcharge on the same and the current bill is served after a gap of one month. It is further averred that after receipt of this bill, the complainant visited the op no.2 and inquired about the claim of Rs.59,392/- and further requested to withdraw the impugned amount of sundry charges added in the bill and also for checking of actual consumption but op no.2 refused for the same and stated that complainant will have to deposit this amount, otherwise electric connection would be disconnected. That now the ops are threatening the complainant in this regard for which they have no legal and valid right. That ops have refused to admit the claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form nor sustainable in the eyes of law as complainant is not the consumer of the Nigam, because as per record maintained by ops-Nigam, the electric connection is actually in the name of Pawan Kumar son of Devi Ram and this fact has also been admitted by complainant, that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try the matter involved between the parties as the subject matter is related to the civil nature and Civil Court has got jurisdiction to try and decide the same; that complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and that complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by her own act and conduct. On merits, it is submitted that bill was issued to the consumer Pawan Kumar on the basis of actual consumed units and the ops are entitled to recover the said amount. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant in order to prove her complaint has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which she has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and has furnished bill Ex.C1, copy of rent agreement Ex.C2 and Ex.C3. On the other hand, ops have furnished affidavit of Sh. Ravinder Singh SDO Ex.R1 and copies of bills Ex.R2 and Ex.R3.
6. It is undisputed fact that complainant is in occupation of basement and second floor of the building as tenant of one Pawan Kumar and paying rent as agreed with the landlord which is evident from the copies of rent note Ex.C2 and Ex.C3. It is further admitted fact that connection was earlier installed in the name of landlord Pawan Kumar which is being used by complainant and she is paying the bills.
7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops has contended that complainant is not consumer of the ops and as such complaint of complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. On the other hand, there is contention of learned counsel for complainant that complainant is actually user of the electric connection and is paying bills regularly. No doubt, the present connection is in the name of owner/ landlord of the building namely Pawan Kumar, but however, he has rented out this property to present complainant Smt. Geeta Rani who is using same and paying bills. So, as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, she is beneficiary of this connection and is actual user of the connection and has become consumer of the ops under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, it appears that complaint filed by complainant is maintainable.
8. Second contention of learned counsel for ops is that the complainant is using this connection for commercial purpose while running a boutique in the property and as such complaint is not maintainable. This contention of learned counsel for ops also appears to be devoid of merit as ops have not taken this plea in their pleadings nor Ravinder Singh SDO who has furnished his affidavit Ex.R1 on behalf of ops has uttered a single word in this regard in his deposition in the affidavit. So, this contention of ops appears to be out of their pleadings and is liable to be ignored.
9. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that ops are issuing the bills of excessive consumption though actually there is no such consumption. On the other hand, the ops have taken the plea that they have served bills on the basis of actual consumption and as per record. So, it appears that it will be in the fitness of things, if present complaint is partly allowed and ops are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant and thereafter to settle the account and amount which becomes due against the complainant.
10. In view of the above, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to re-examine and overhaul the account of complainant in the presence of complainant/ her representative after serving seven days prior notice to the complainant and thereafter to settle the account and grant 15 days time to deposit money due, if any against the complainant. 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. President,
Dated:28.05.2019 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
