DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.192 OF 2014.
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 16.07.2014.
DATE OF ORDER: 03.02.2017
Om Parkash son of Shri Chand Ram, resident of village Arya Nagar, Tehsil Dadri, District Bhiwani.
………Complainant.
Versus
- Xen DHBVNL, Dadri, District Bhiwani.
- SDO, DHBVNL, Badhra, District Bhiwani.
………Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,
BEFORE: Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.
Present: Shri V.B. Malik, Advocate for complainant.
Shri K.R. Sangwan, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
RAJESH JINDAL, President:
In brief, the case of the complainant is that a tubewell connection was released to the complainant under handicapped category on 10.05.1992 but the connection was not installed and the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the Learned District Forum, Bhiwani and an order dated 30.11.1999 was passed. It is alleged that ultimately the tubewell connection was installed in the year 2005 and the compensation awarded in the said order dated 30.11.1999 has not been paid to him till the filing of the complaint. He further submitted that no bill was ever issued to the complainant for the consumption of electricity. It is alleged that the complainant received a bill dated 25.05.2014 billing account No. SD-51-0539 which was in the name of Om Parkash, Village Kari Dhani, Bhiwani for a sum of Rs. 4,14,029/-. It is alleged that the said bill is not according to the consumption of electricity and as such is illegal and it does not pertain to the complainant because the complainant is resident of village Arya Nagar, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. Opposite parties on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has applied for the release of tubewell connection and that the complainant had deposited security amount under the handicapped quota. It is submitted that the T/F is the property of Ops and they are free to connect any connection to its electric system. It is submitted that proper voltage was supplied to the complainant and he sustained no loss. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed against respondents with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for Ops has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4, R1-A alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned Counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that a tubewell connection was released to the complainant under handicapped category on 10.05.1992 but the connection was not installed and the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the Learned District Forum, Bhiwani and an order dated 30.11.1999 was passed. Ultimately the tubewell connection was installed in the year 2005 and the compensation awarded in the said order dated 30.11.1999 has not been paid to him till the filing of the complaint. He further submitted that no bill was ever issued to the complainant for the consumption of electricity. The complainant received a bill dated 25.05.2014 billing account No. SD-51-0539 which was in the name of Om Parkash, Village Kari Dhani, Bhiwani for a sum of Rs. 4,14,029/-. The said bill is not according to the consumption of electricity and as such is illegal and it does not pertain to the complainant because the complainant is resident of village Arya Nagar, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
7. Learned Counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the AP connection of the complainant was installed on 27.12.1999 vide SCO No. 27/4 dated 11.10.1996, which is Annexure R-2. The complainant did not paid even a single penny upto September 2014 for the consumption of the electricity and as such the complainant is liable to pay Rs. 4,40,130/- to the Ops. As per Annexure R-3, the statement of account a sum of Rs. 4,88,198/- is outstanding against the Ops upto to March 2015.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record carefully. The counsel for the complainant stressed that prior to bill dated 23.05.2014 in dispute, no bill has been issued by the Ops to the complainant. This fact has not been denied by the Ops in their reply. Admittedly, order dated 30.11.1999 was passed by this District Forum, wherein the Ops were directed to release the electricity connection to the tubewell of the complainant and were also directed to pay Rs. 12,000/- as compensation and litigation cost Rs. 500/-. This order was to be complied with within 2 months from the date of passing of the same. We have perused the SCO No. 27/4 dated 11.10.1996, wherein account number has been mentioned as SKAP/1983 and the date of connection is mentioned as 27.12.1999. Wherein the bill dated 23.05.2014 Annexure C-2 produced by the complainant is bearing account No. ND-51-0539 which is in the name of OP village Kari Dhani, Bhiwani. The complainant has given his address as Om Parkash son of Chand Ram, resident of Arya Nagar, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. From the facts stated hereinabove, it seems that the bill in dispute does not pertain to the complainant because the account number given on the bill is different which has been given in the SCO. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to overhaul the account of the complainant from the date of installation till September 2014 and issue the fresh bill without any surcharge or penalty because the Ops are liable to issue the bills to the consumer regularly, which is not proved in this case by the Ops. The Ops are further directed to adjust the amounts awarded in the order dated 30.11.1999 of this District Forum. The Ops are also directed to pay Rs. 1500/- as litigation cost to the complainant. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 03.02.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta)
Member.
