Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/189/2019

Jasmin - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Jitender Thakar

09 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,FATEHABAD.

                                                           Complaint No.189 of 2019.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 14.05.2019.

                                                           Date of Decision: 09.04.2024.

 

Jasmin daughter of Harbhagwan Rukhaya son of Tirlok Chand resident of Jagjiwanpura, Fatehabad through her general power of attorney Harbhagwan Rukhaya son of Tirlok Chand.

 

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through Executive Engineer, Operation Division, DHBVN Fatehabad.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division, City, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad.

                                                                             …Opposite parties.

 

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

BEFORE:             Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.

                             Smt. Harisha Mehta, Presiding Member.

                             Dr.K.S.Nirania, Member

 

Argued by:            Sh.Jitender Thakker, Adv. for the complainant.

                             Sh.Rajender Jandli, Adv. for the Ops.

 

ORDER:

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

                            

1.                          The complainant has filed this complaint against the    OPs with the averments that there is an electric connection bearing account No.2921500000 (Old Account No.112413DUJJ1D1712) installed at Subhash Nagar in the name of Rajender Kumar from whom the complainant has purchased the house were the electric connection is installed vide sale deed No.9019 dated 22.03.2015; that the complainant has been making the electricity bills regularly and nothing is due towards her; that the Ops have sent a bill to the tune of Rs.2,66,952/- payable on 23.04.2019 by showing the consumed units as 40462 for the period from 04.07.2014 to 15.04.2019 despite the fact that she had been making the electricity bills regularly; that in the bill payable on 19.02.2018, the consumed units have been shown as 110 units and the complainant had already made the payment thereof; that the complainant requested the to treat the bill of Rs.2,66,952/- null and void but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

2.                          The OPs appeared and filed their joint reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, concealment of material facts and cause of action etc. have been taken.  It has been further submitted that the bill amounting to Rs.266952/- has been issued on correct consumed units of 40462 and the complainant is bound to make the payment thereof. Other pleas made in the complaint by the complainant have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3                           The complainant has tendered affidavit and document Ex.C1, Annexure C1 to Annexure C4 whereas the learned counsel for the Ops have tendered documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R4.

4.                          Heard. We have examined the pleadings and documents of the parties very carefully.

5.                          During the course of arguments learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record receipt showing  that an amount of Rs.2,80263/- has been deposited with Ops qua the outstanding dues on the electricity connection bearing account No.2921500000.  By the way of this complainant the complainant has challenged the bill amounting to Rs.2,66,952/- but since he had already deposited the disputed amount, therefore, the complaint automatically stands in-fructuous and need not to be dealt with further. Moreover, the complainant is not the consumer of the Ops because the receipt qua depositing of amount to the tune of Rs.2,80,263/-has been issued by the Ops in the name of previous Rajender Kumar.

6.                          On the basis of above mentioned discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency in service at all or any unfair trade practice, on the part of any of the Ops, as alleged, so as to make any of them liable to any extent in this matter. Hence, the complaint is dismissed in view of the facts and circumstances stated above.  All the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.  This order be uploaded, forthwith, on the website of this Commission as per rules for the perusal of the parties. File be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 09.04.2024

 

                                                                                                        

          (K.S.Nirania)                    (Harisha Mehta)         (Rajbir Singh)                             Member                               Member                              President