Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/691/2015

Omprkash Gupta s/o Late Kapoor Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

J.V.V.V.N.Ltd. through Assistant Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

O.P.Gupta

25 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 691 /2015

 

Omprakash Gupta s/o Late Kapoor chand Gupta r/o C-310 Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

Vs.

 

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. through A.En. D III Malviya Nagar ,Jaipur.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 902 /2015

 

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. through A.En. D III Malviya Nagar ,Jaipur.

Vs.

 

Omprakash Gupta s/o Late Kapoor chand Gupta r/o C-310 Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 25.02 .2016

 

 

2

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.Om Prakash Gupta complainant present in-person

Mr.Sanjay Sharma counsel for JVVNL

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

Both these appeals have been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Jaipur 3^rd dated 14.5.2015.

 

The contention of the complainant is that he has paid the excess amount i.e. Rs.13,676/- on 26.5.2009 but no interest has been allowed to him on the same and only a meagre amount of compensation has been allowed.

 

Per contra the contention of the service provider company was that complainant was having three meters and due to mistake only from one meter reading has been taken and when

the mistake was known to them, the amount was raised and there is no deficiency in service on the part of service provider

3

 

and the electricity which has been consumed by the complainant has been charged.

 

Heard the complainant who is present in-person and the counsel for the JVVNL and perused the impugned order as well as original record of the case.

 

It is not in dispute that prior to May 2009 the complainant had deposited all regular bills and no dues were made against him. In May 2009 Rs. 13,676/- were shown due against him. There is no evidence to the effect that instead of three meters, reading of only one meter was taken and bills were issued on the basis of one meter reading. Hence, the court below has rightly held that it was deficiency on the part of service provider and there is no merit in the argument of the service provider company and its appeal is liable to be rejected.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that Rs. 13,676/- has been deposited by the complainant on 26.5.2009 and it was remained unnecessarily with the respondent hence, interest has rightly been claimed. The court below has also awarded Rs.5000/- as cost of proceedings. The appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by the same court in Complaint No.

4

 

548/2013 Manoj Kumar Vs. North Western Railway, Jaipur Railway Station & ors. where parking fees has been collected Rs.20/- instead of Rs.5/- and Rs. 5 lakhs compensation has been awarded.

 

The facts of the above case and the findings of the court below shows that compensation has been allowed on exemplary basis which is not the case here. This is the case of single consumer and the court below has rightly allowed the compensation. There is no ground to enhance the compensation but at the same time the appeal of the complainant is liable to be partially allowed and he is entitled to have interest @ 9% on the amount of Rs. 13,676/- from 26.5.2009 till the date of order i.e. 14.5.2015. It has been further made clear that the amount should be paid within one month failing which the complainant will be further entitled to have interest @ 9% from 14.5.2015 till the amount is paid.

 

Hence, the appeal of the complainant is partially allowed as above and the appeal of the JVVNL is dismissed.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President