Haryana

StateCommission

A/468/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

KIRAN GARG - Opp.Party(s)

N.P.S.KOHLI

05 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.468 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 22.05.2015

Date of Decision: 05.12.2016

 

S.D.O. “OP” Sub Division UHBVNL., Industrial Area, Distt. Sonepat.

 

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

Kiran Garg W/o Ram Babu, S/o Suraj Bhan, r/o H.NO.1037/23, Gali Inderlok, Gur Mandi, Old Rohtak Road,Sonepat.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.N.P.S.Kohli, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Sant Ram, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that she was using electricity  through connection No.KM5 changed to new No. as 1-30-2579-Y for domestic purpose. She regularly paid electricity bill upto 11.06.2014.  On 12.08.2014 she received a bill of Rs.33,906/- which was altogether wrong. The Opposite Party (O.P.) was requested to rectify the mistake, but, to no avail.

2.      O.P. filed reply controverting her averments and alleged that at the time of checking on 11.02.2014 it was found that she was using this connection for electricity in his school known as ‘Sun Shine Preparatory School’.  In this way she was used electricity connection for non-domestic purpose and that is why penalty was imposed and aforesaid demand was raised. She was not entitled to use domestic connection for non-domestic purpose and as such the complaint was not maintainable.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint  vide order dated 27.04.2015 and directed as under:-

“So, in our view, the calculation on which the respondent is relying upon is wrong, illegal and totally unjustified. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint with the direction to the respondent to issue the bill to the complainant after considering the connection of the complainant for DS purposes only and to adjust the amount which has been paid by the complainant during the pendency of the present case under NDS category in the future bills of the complainant.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. has preferred this appeal

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant-O.P. vehemently argued that from the perusal of inspection report Ex.R-1 it is clear that she was using DS connection for NDS category and that is why this penalty was imposed. Learned District forum failed to take into consideration this aspect and wrongly set aside the demand so impugned order be set aside.

7.      This argument is of no avail. From the perusal of Annexure C-3 it is clear that complainant moved an application to rectify the bill after checking. It was reported by the concerned official of the department on 18.03.2014 that the connection was used for domestic purpose. The same fact was also mentioned in the report dated 19.08.2014.  It shows that the connection was used for domestic purpose and not for non-domestic. Report Ex.R-1 is neither bearing the signature of the consumer nor any other person.  In these circumstances, Annexure C-3 cannot be ignored. Learned District forum has rightly set aside the demand raised vide impugned bill dated 26.11.2014.  Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

December 05th, 2016

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.