BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 124 of 2016/2018.
Date of Institution: 15.06.2016/ 12.06.2018.
Date of Decision: 13.02.2020
Rajinder Singh (deceased) through his legal heirs (a) Smt.Roshni widow (b) Navin son (c) Sunil son (d) Monika daughter of Rajinder Singh son of Ram Sarup resident of Chotu Ram Colony Bhiwani Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- D.H.B.V.N.L. Hisar through its Managing Director D.H.B.V.N.L Vidyut Nagar, Hisar
- Executive Engineer, D.H.B.V.N.L. Bhiwani.
- S.D.O/A.G.M. Sub Urban, Sub Division No.1, D.H.B.V.N.L., Bhiwani.
...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: - Mr. Nagender Singh, President.
Mr. Shriniwas Khundia, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Rishipal Parmar, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER:-
NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant (deceased) was user of domestic electricity connection No.VNID-0575 and the opposite parties had issued a notice for payment of Rs.64,663/- against theft case and disconnected the electricity supply on 05.12.2009. The complainant had filed a complaint before Hon’ble Forum in December, 2009 and had deposited 50 % amount of SOP i.e. Rs.20332 on 17.12.2009 and further deposited a sum of Rs.24,000/- as compounding fee on 04.05.2012 before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant regarding restoring of the electricity connection. In the month of January, 2013, a scheme of new electric connection was launched for the consumers who have already deposited 50 % of SOP and full compounding amount and the remaining amount was also not to be recovered. Due to this, the complainant had withdrawn his complaint on 23.07.2013. On 20.02.2014, the opposite parties had issued a bill No.897 dated 20.02.2014 for Rs.53699/- despite the fact that the connection of the complainant remained disconnected from 05.12.2009 to 28.08.2012 and the complainant is liable to pay only for the bill after installation of his new electric connection. In the said bill units have been shown only 132 but the bill amount is Rs.53699/-, therefore the bill has wrongly been issued, which requires correction. The complainant requested the opposite parties for the correction of the bill but to no avail. The act and conduct of the opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their joint reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, locus standi and jurisdiction etc. have been taken. It has been submitted that the earlier complaint No.667/09 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.07.2017, therefore, second complaint is not maintainable. It is further submitted that except the alleged penalty amount, two more cases of theft of electricity were also imposed on the complainant and his connection was permanently disconnected since long. The complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer. As per rules, the complainant is not entitled to get benefit of alleged scheme. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Thereafter, the parties have led their respective evidence. The complainant has tendered in evidence documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C7 and closed the evidence on 30.09.2019. On the other hand, the opposite parties have tendered documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R4 and closed the evidence on 13.12.2019.
4. After going through the material available on the case file it is clear that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. Perusal of the case file reveals an amount of Rs.5371/- was paid by the complainant in the month of January, 2009 and Rs.9972/- were paid approximately in the month of May 2009 and thereafter he deposited an amount of Rs.20332/- on account of theft of electricity energy on 17.12.2009 as per court order. As per the complainant his electricity connection remained disconnected from 2009 to 8/2012 and thereafter new meter was installed in his premises in the month of October, 2012. Bare perusal of the copy of ledger and other documents itself show that officials of the Nigam have deducted an amount of Rs.1,39,411/- for the period when there was no electricity connection/meter in the premises of the complainant i.e. from 2009 to 8/2012. As per record, new meter was installed in the premises of the complainant approximately in the month of September/October 2012. Though he had paid compounding fee on account of theft of electricity on 01.05.2012 and till date he has not paid any electricity energy charges pending towards him. Undisputedly, the the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a benevolent social legislation as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in their judgements from time to time and is aimed at providing for better protection of the interests of the consumers as defined in the preamble to the Act itself but it does not give any liberty to anyone to take undue advantage of the same. More-so, it is well settled principle of law that he who seeks equity must do equity but in the present case on one hand, the complainant is not making the payment of electricity energy for a long period i.e. after 2009 to till date and even has been caught by the Nigam for stealing the electricity and on the other hand he has approached this Forum with unclean hands for taking undue advantage. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar, 2004 (7) SCC 166, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held, interalia, as under:-
"As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it."
The complainant has failed to prove on the case file that as to why he has suffered any loss or damage from the hands of the opposite parties rather due to the act and conduct of the complainant the Nigam is being suffered economic loss. More-so, in para No.9 of the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that bill No.897 dated 20.02.2014 has shown only 132 commercial units but perusal of the bill dated 20.02.2014 (Annexure C2) reveals the connection detail as domestic purposes.
5. In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: - 13.02.2020
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Rishpal Parmar, Advocate for the OPs.
Arguments heard. Order announced. Vide our separate order of even dated, we dismiss this complaint. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced: 13.02.2020
Member President/DCDRF/ Bhiwani
