Haryana

StateCommission

A/946/2015

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAI PARKASH - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.NEGI

31 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      946 of 2015

Date of Institution:      26.10.2015

Date of Decision :       31.03.2016

 

1.     Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Managing Director at Hisar.

2.     Executive Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Op. Division, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

3.     Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Op. Rania, Sub Division, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Jai Parkash s/o Sh. Shiv Shankar, Resident of Rania, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri B.S. Negi, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri B.S. Mittal, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred by Opposite Parties against the order dated May 27^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.2 of 2013.

2.      Jai Parkash-Complainant (respondent), got electric domestic connection bearing account No.SR-06-3268 from Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘DHBVNL’). He was paying the bills regularly. He received bill dated December 29^th, 2010 (Exhibit C-2) showing electricity consumption of 214 units. However, a sum of Rs.39,446/- was added as Sundry Charges. The complainant challenged the demand of Rs.39,446/-. The DHBVNL disconnected the supply of electricity for non-payment. The DHBVNL insisting for payment of the amount shown under the head of ‘Sundry Charges’ as the condition to restore the connection, under compelled circumstances, the complainant deposited the amount and has sought refund of the same.

3.      The Opposite Parties/DHBVNL, contested the complaint. It was stated that the DHBVNL has filed a Civil Suit for recovery and thus the matter being subjudice, the complaint was not maintainable.

4.      On merits, it was admitted that the complainant had taken the electric connection for domestic supply, however stated that he was paying bills on average basis from August, 2008 to July, 2010. The meter was replaced on August 4^th, 2010 and adjusting the payments made against the bills on average basis, the amount demanded was found due. Other plea was raised that the complainant had rented out the premises to Rania Cooperative Society, Rania, which had earlier filed the complaint, which was dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, the present complaint was not maintainable.

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint directing the DHBVNL/Opposite Parties, as under:-

“…Demand of the opposite parties for Rs.39446/- as sundry charges, in impugned electricity bill dated 29.12.2010 is hereby set-aside. The opposite parties are hereby required to immediately restore the electric connection, to the premises of the complainant, if not already restored, which was dis-connected, for non-payment of the impugned amount. If electric connection was already restored, then to return the re-connection charges, which might have been taken from the complainant, if any. The opposite parties are also hereby required to return Rs.54218/-, deposited by the complainant, with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of the deposit i.e. dated 27.8.2014, till payment. The complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.8,000/- for his harassment, humiliation, mental tension etc and litigation expenses of Rs.3300/- against the opposite parties.”

6.      Indisputably, Civil Suit No.01-C of 2012-13 filed by DHBVNL titled “Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited versus Jai Parkash”  was got dismissed as withdrawn on February 14^th, 2015, vide order Annexure-A. Once, the DHBVNL/opposite parties have withdrawn the suit, where the complainant could challenge the amount, therefore, filing of suit was not relevant for the purpose of decision of the present complaint. Rather withdrawal of the civil suit by the DHBVNL raises an adverse inference against it, because had the amount been actually payable,   the    DHBVNL would not have withdrawn the suit. There is nothing on the record to suggest as how the amount of sundry charges, that is, Rs.39,446/- was calculated. In absence of any evidence, the DHBVNL cannot be allowed to claim the same from the complainant. Thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

7.      In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 31.03.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL