Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/39/2019

M/S BP ITI - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

SANJAY AGGARWAL

18 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

  CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. :    39 of 2019

                      DATE OF INSTITUTION            :    14.02.2019

                                DATE OF ORDER:                     :   18.03.2024

 

M/s Bharpai Pratap Pvt. ITI, Bhurtana, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani through its Secretary, Ramehar son Sh. Pratap Singh.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitrran Nigam Limited, Sub Division Tosham, District Bhiwani through its SDO.

 

2. The Executive Engineer, Operation Division, DHBVNL, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

….. Opposite Parties/OP Nigam

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT,1986.

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. B.S. Indora, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER:

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that Bharpai Pratap Pvt. ITI, an educational institute, is working under a society ‘Tigala Education Society Bhurtana’  and complainant is secretary of the said society (hereinafter referred to as ITI). Complainant get issued an electric connection in the name of ITI vide No. BT-21-0835 AN DS in July 2016 from OP Nigam. It is stated that complainant received a bill of Rs.84,502/- in November 2017 which as per complaint was wrong and not on the basis of actual reading. So, complainant approached the OP Nigam to issue correct bill, and requested to deposit the amount of alleged bill in installments. Complainant has further submitted that the OP Nigam was threatening to disconnect electric supply to his premises in case of non-deposit of the alleged bill. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service resulting into mental and physical harassment besides monetary loss. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OP Nigam to issue correct bill on the basis of actual reading and not to disconnect the electric supply to his premises. Further to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua preliminary objections, locus standi, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and that the complaint has been filed with ulterior motive. On merits, it is submitted that account no.BT-21-0835 was wrongly refunded of Rs.50,121/- to the consumer vide SC & AR No.1272/12 instead of debit, without any request of the consumer, report and verification of concerned JE and without sign of the SDO, now the double amount Rs.1,00,242/- charged.  Later on provision bill for nine months was prepared. Complainant did not pay the bill D.O.C. 15.07.2016 to August 2019 and paid Rs.82,000/- in the month of September 2019 after PDCO. Thus the OP Nigam submitted that bill was sent to complainant on the basis of actual reading. In the end, prayer for dismissal of complaint with heavy costs.

3.                 Learned counsel for complainant tendered in evidence, affidavit of complainant as Ex.C1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-13 and closed the evidence on 12.06.2023.  

4.                 On the other side, learned counsel for OPs tendered in evidence, documents Ex. D-1 and Ex. D-2 and closed the evidence on 28.02.2024.

5.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.                 During the course of arguments, learned counsel for OPs has drawn our attention towards an affidavit dated 16.11.2023 (Ex. D2) which deposed by complainant Ramehar to the effect that ‘the OPs have correct the disputed electricity bill and he being satisfied with the same, does not want to pursue further with the present complaint and prayed for disposal of the case accordingly and further, he will have no objection for the same.’  The OP has also placed on record, proceedings of the corrected bill as (Ex.D-1).

7.                 On the other side, complainant side has not denied this fact and prayed for disposal of the case accordingly.

8.                 In view of the above, the dispute in the present complaint has been settled between the parties. Thus no further action is warranted in the present case. Accordingly, the complaint stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.  No order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.         

Announced.

Dated:18.03.2024