BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No.278 of 2016.
Date of Instt.: 27.10.2016.
Date of Decision: 04.08.2017.
Laxmi Devi aged 40 years wife of Mohan Lal resident of Ward No.12, Ratia District Fatehabad.
...Complainant
Versus
1.Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through Executive Engineer, Operation Division, DHBVN, Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.
2.Sub Divisional Officer, Operation City Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Ratia District Fatehabad.
..Opposite parties/Respondents
Complaint U/S 12 of CP Act
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President
Sh. R.S.Panghal, Presiding Member.
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Sh.Naresh Sharma, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Satpal Sethi, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has brought the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, called, the Act).
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is having a domestic electric connection bearing No.MT1D-1774-A and has been paying the regular consumption charges. It is further averred that complainant has received a bill amounting to Rs.35777 and the same was to be paid by 07.01.2016. In the said bill an amount of Rs.30552/- has been shown as sundry charges/allowances which is wrong, against facts and law and liable to be set aside. The complainant visited the office of the Ops Nigam to correct the same many times but in vain. Hence, this complaint with the prayer to correct he aforesaid bill and to pay Rs.15000/- as compensation on account of unnecessary harassment and litigation charges etc.
- On notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections such as the complaint filed by the complainant is a false, frivolous and vexatious; that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and the complainant is stopped by her own act and conduct to file the present complaint; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint etc. On merits, it is submitted that the bill issued to the complainant is correct by following the due procedure and as per law and the complainant is legally bound to pay the same. It has also been submitted that the complaint was using the electricity in a dishonest manner. All other allegations have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. In evidence, the complainant has filed her affidavit Ex.CW1 and bill in dispute as Ex.C1 whereas on the other hand, the Ops led evidence i.e. affidavit and documents Annexure R1 to R4. Thereafter, both the parties closed their evidence vide separate statements.
5. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully.
6. A perusal of file reveals that the opposite parties have placed on file Copy of checking report as Annexure R1, copy of order of assessment as Annexure R2, copy of notice to consumer to compound the offence of the theft of electricity U/s 135 and Section 152 of Electricity act-2003 and copy of request for lodging of FIR against the complainant Laxmi Devi on account of indulging in theft of electricity. All these documents show that the amount challenged by the complainant was imposed on account of theft of electricity whereas the complainant has alleged in his complaint as sundry charges/allowances. It means that the complainant has not come in this Forum with clean hands and concealed the true facts.
7. Even otherwise, where the allegations of theft are involved then this Forum has no jurisdiction to try it as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad, III (2013) CPJ 1 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that nature of transaction under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 does not come within the ambit of complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
8. In view of the above, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint deserves dismissal. We order accordingly. However, the complainant is at liberty to seek remedy before competent court of law. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs as provided under the Rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced. (Ansuya Bishnoi) (R.S.Panghal) (Raghbir Singh)
Dt. 4.8.2017 Member Member President
