Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1160/2010

Madu Ram S/o Late. Hajari Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Junior Engineer Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

N.L. Saini

20 Apr 2015

ORDER

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

 

APPEAL NO: 1160/2010

 

Maaduram s/o Late Hazarilal r/o Chak Nangal Tehsil Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu

Vs.

A.En. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu & ors.

 

Date of Order 20.4.2015

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs. Sunita Ranka- Member

Mr. Liyakat Ali -Member

 

Mr.Noranglal Saini counsel for the appellant

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sharma counsel for the respondents

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of

2

 

learned DCF Jhunjhunu dated 17.5.2010 by which it dis- allowed the complaint.

 

The complainant had filed a consumer complaint before the learned DCF alleging that his electric connection had been disconnected in the year 2008. On 23.1.2009 he deposited all the over dues of Rs. 2794/- alongwith re-connection fee of Rs.600/- but the respondents did not reconnect the connection. The respondents admitted that complainant's connection had been disconnected and he had deposited all the over dues on 23.1.2009. They submitted that the connection had been restored on 5.2.2009 but it was again disconnected on 1.9.2009 as an amount of Rs. 5120.64 had become over due. The learned DCF accepted the version of the respondents.

 

We have heard the arguments of the respective counsels. There is no evidence or material to believe that the connection was restored on 5.2.2009 and after six months it was again disconnected for non-payment of bills. The report prepared on 1.9.2009 disconnecting the connection bears no name or account number or meter number. Secondly, no details of the over due payment of Rs. 5120.64 has been put on record and we are of the view that the respondents had upto a false defence. In

3

 

fact the connection was not restored as alleged by the complainant. Another fact that the respondents were restrained from recovering Rs. 5120.64 by this Commission during the pendency of appeal upon depositing Rs. 2600/- by the complainant was flouted by the respondents. The complainant deposited Rs. 2600/- as per orders of this Commission and the balance Rs. 2608/- were recovered from the complainant during the pendency of this appeal through his electric bills.

 

After considering all the material on record we are inclined to accept the appeal. We order that the respondents shall refund Rs. 5120.64 recovered from the complainant as over dues alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this complaint. The complainant has put to loss as his electric connection was not restored for a year which deprieved of him his agriculture activities. For this we order that the respondents shall pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as costs to the complainant.

 

 

Member Member Presiding Member

 

nm