Haryana

StateCommission

A/508/2017

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ISHWAR CHAND - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

06 Nov 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

First Appeal    No  :    508 of  2017

Date of Institution  :      25.04.2017  

Date of Decision    :      06.11.2018

  

 

1.      SDO, Israna Sub Division, UHBVNL, Israna, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat.

 

2.      XEN, Sub Urban Division, UHBVNL, Gohana Road, Panipat.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Ishar Chand son of Sh. Lakhmi Chand, aged 58 years, resident of Gali No.1. Sanjay Colony, near Sugar Mills, Gohana Road, Panipat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

 

 

Argued by:          Ms. Alka Joshi, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Susheel Gautam, Advocate for the respondent-complainant.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Israna & XEN, Sub Urban Division, Panipat-opposite parties (for short ‘UHBVNL’) are in appeal against the order dated December 23^rd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘District Forum’). For ready reference, operative part of the impugned order is reproduced as under:-

“In view of our aforementioned findings and observations, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.26,550/- being sundry charges, made through bill (Ex.C1) dated 08.05.2015. However, vide order dated 3.7.2015, the complainant was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed amount of Rs.33,129/- and if the complainant has deposited any amount in compliance of the order dated 03.07.2015, the same be adjusted while overhauling the account of this complainant. The complainant shall also be entitled to Rs.2200/- for the mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses.”

2.      Ms. Alka Joshi, learned counsel for the UHBVNL has stated that the complainant was using the electricity connection for commercial purpose whereas it was released for domestic purpose. 

3.      To resolve the issue, the complainant has placed on record affidavit and certificate (Annexures A-1 & A-2) of Sushil Sharma, Councilor, Municipal Corporation, Ward No.16, Panipat stating that no commercial activities are being carried out in the premises of the complainant.  It has also been clarified by him that the electricity bill used to be sent at the address of a shop located in the vicinity and when the vigilance team inspected the shop, the electricity bill in the name of complainant was found there.  On the basis of the same, the vigilance team stated that the premises was being used for commercial purpose and as such, the commercial charges were levied in the electricity bill of the complainant.  Not only that, the residents of the same locality have submitted their affidavits (Annexures A-3 & A-7) supporting the submission of the complainant that the premises was not used for commercial purpose. A photograph (Annexure A-8) of the house duly attested has also been placed on record, which clearly depicts that the premises is a house and no shop is being run from the said premises.  In this view of the matter, no interference in the impugned order is called for. The appeal is dismissed.

4.      The statutory amount of Rs.1100/- deposited by the appellants be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

Announced 06.11.2018

(Manjula) Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K