Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1183/2011

Mukesh Sharma S/o Madan Mohan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer Division UHBVN ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sachin Bhardwaj

05 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 1183 of 2011.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 28.11.2011.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 05.09.2016.

Mukesh Sharma aged about 45 years son of Sh. Madan Mohan resident of H. No. 344/17, Adarsh Nagar, Camp, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                              …Complainant.

 

                                    Versus

 

1. Executive Engineer (OP) Division, UHBVN, Yamuna Nagar District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division-1, UHBVN, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                             …Respondents          

BEFORE          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG,  PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate, counsel for complainant. 

               Sh. Dharambir Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

           

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.   

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is having an electricity domestic connection bearing account No. Y41YY150717A and as such there exist a relationship of consumer and supplier between the parties. The complainant has recently got first electricity bill bearing No. 2135 dated 23.10.2011 issued by the respondents (hereinafter referred as Ops). After installation of the said electricity connection amounting to Rs. 1421/- and the same was paid by the complainant and nothing is due against the complainant. Thereafter, a week ago, the official of the Ops came to the house of the complainant and told that some outstanding amount is still due towards his father, as his father has expired, so the complainant is liable to pay the same. On this, the complainant told the official of the Ops that whatsoever outstanding amount is lying towards his father, the same is to be paid by his sister-in-law Rukmani Devi, so, the Ops cannot charge the said amount from the complainant but the officials of the Ops were adamant to charge the same from the complainant. On 25.11.2011, some official of the Ops again came to the house of the complainant and forcibly and illegally disconnected the electricity supply of the complainant and also further threatened that they will lodge the FIR against him. Such act and conduct of the Ops constitute deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to restore the electricity connection to the complainant and further not to demand any outstanding amount lying due towards the deceased father of the complainant and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi or any cause of action; complainant has concealed the true and material facts and on merit it has been admitted that current consumption bill has been paid by the complainant and rest contents of the complaint has been denied being wrong and incorrect. The true facts as disclosed by the Ops are that two other domestic connections in the same premises were existing one in the name of Madan Mohan father of the complainant and second connection was in the name of Rukmani Devi wife of his son Shiv Kumar and out of these, Madan Mohan become defaulter for amount of Rs. 51647/- and due to his non payment of the said consumption amount, the connection standing in the name of Madan Mohan was disconnected and the said outstanding amount was added in the account of Rukmani Devi being wife of his son and this was done as per family settlement between the complainant and said Rukmani Devi and this amount was being paid by the complainant to Rukmani Devi and Rukmani Devi was paying the outstanding amount in the installments to the Ops. In this way, the amount to the tune of near about Rs. 24,000/- has been paid by the said Rukmani Devi but in the meantime the complainant Mukesh Sharma obtained connection in his name in the same premises and after getting new connection, the complainant stopped making payment of defaulting amount of his father Madan Mohan to Rukmani Devi, his sister in law. Thereafter, Rukmani Devi moved an application to the Ops saying that complainant is not making the payment of remaining defaulting amount to her as per family settlement. When the defaulting amount was not being paid by any of them both the connections of the complainant as well as said Rukmani Devi were disconnected. It has been further mentioned that Rukmani Devi is widow lady and could not deposit the said defaulting amount which was to be given to her by the complainant. Lastly, it has been mentioned that outstanding defaulting amount is consumption charges for which complainant as well as Rukmani Devi are liable to pay the same. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of his version counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and document such as photo copy of Bill No. 2136 dated 23.10.2011 as Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Ravinder Mittal, SDO Operation, UHBVNL, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure RW/A and documents such as application of Rukmani Devi as Annexure R-1, Copy of ledger of the account bearing No. 4415/617 of Smt. Rukmani Devi as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     From the perusal of copy of ledger bearing account No. 4415/617 in respect of Rukmani Devi (Annexure R-2), it is evident that an amount of Rs. 51643/- has been added by the Ops. Further, it is also evident that said Rukmani Devi had deposited an amount of Rs. 8500/-, Rs. 7500/-, Rs. 8000/-, Rs. 7200/- and Rs. 7500/- on 04.11.2010, 08.01.2011, 11.03.2011, 10.05.2011 and 08.07.2011 respectively and an amount of Rs. 27913/- is still outstanding in this account up to 10/2011.

8.                     After hearing both the parties at length, we are of the considered view that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant just on account of apprehension that Ops will transfer the arrears/defaulting amount standing in the name of their deceased father Madan Mohan and brother Vinay Sharma in his account whereas from the perusal of ledger Annexure R-2, it is evident that the defaulting amount of Rs. 51647/- had been transferred in the account of Smt. Rukmani Devi bearing account No. YY15/0617PV. As the said Rukmani Devi has also filed a Consumer Complaint bearing No. 310 dated 26.03.2012 on the same ground as the defaulting amount was transferred in her account which has been accepted by this Forum vide our order/judgment dated 05.09.2016 and the said defaulting amount of Rs. 51647/- has been quashed. When the defaulting amount of Rs. 51647/- has already been quashed in Consumer Complaint No. 310 of 26.03.2012, then how the OPs can demand the same from the complainant.

9.                     In the circumstances noted above, the present complaint becomes infructuous and the same is ordered to be dismissed.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 05.09.2016.

(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

 PRESIDENT

                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                    MEMBER.