JAGDISH CHANDER KHURANA filed a consumer case on 05 Sep 2016 against MADAN LAL MEENA in the West Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/08/357 and the judgment uploaded on 09 Sep 2016.
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058
Date of institution :3.5.08
Case. No357 /08 Date of order :5/9/16
In the matter of
Jagdish Chander Khurana,
S/o Lt. Sh. Harichand Khurana,
R/o 28/21, G.F., West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi. COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Sh. Madan Lal Meena,
Business Manager,
BSES (Y), Block No.18,
East Patael Nagar,
New Delhi-08. OPPOSITE PARTY
ORDER
R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT
The brief relevant facts for disposal of the present complaint are that Sh. Jagdish Chander Khurana, herein complainant is resident of 28/21 G.F. West Patel Nagar, having old electric meter No.14200344739 and new electric meter No.114147090269. Sh. Narinder Kumar Arora is resident of 28/21, First Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi with old electric meter No.5142003447412 and new meter No.114147090271. Both the electric meters are in the name of Sh. Shiv Chand. Sh. N.K. Arora in collusion with staff members of BSES(Y), East Patel Nagar, forged letter dated 26.8.08 showing request of the complainant for change of complainant’s electric meter. The complainant in month of Septermber,2007 received electricity bill on average basis. The electricity supply of the complainant was disconnected . He made complaint to police station Patel Nagar and BSES. On fifth day electric meter of the complainant was changed. The complainant suffered loss of studies of his children, wife and himself on account of disconnection of electricity for four days. Hence, the present complaint for direction to the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on account of loss of studies and litigation expenses Rs.5,000/-.
The Opposite Party filed reply while contesting the complaint raising preliminary objections of concealment of true facts and the complaint is false and frivolous. However, on merits it is admitted that on request of complainant his electric meter was changed. But denied disconnection of electricity for five days.
The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of Opposite Party while controverting the stand taken by the Opposite Party and reiterated his stand taken in the complaint. The complainant once again prayed for direction to the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ of 12% P.A. on account of loss of studies and litigation expenses Rs.5,000/-.
The parties were asked to led evidence in support of their case. The complainant in support of his case filed evidence by way of affidavit dated 21.8.12, wherein he has once again narrated the facts of the complaint and prayed for the directions as per the complaint. The complainant in support of his case relied upon copy of application for change of meter dated 26.8.2007, copies of electricity bills for the month of March-08,September-07 and 2008 ,November -4 and December-04. Copy of statement of account of UCO Bank, copy of meter change report dated 20.2.08 and photocopy of proforma submitted to the BSES. The Opposite Party in support of their version submitted affidavit of Sh. Jagan Lal Bairwa, Asstt. Manager of Opposite Party dated 4.2.09 wherein he narrated the facts of the reply and further asserted that electricity supply of the complainant was not disconnected.
It is worth mentioning here that the complaint was dismissed in default for non-prosecution and non-appearance of the complainant vide order dated 15.10.12 of this Forum. The complainant filed appeal No.2012/1044 against the order dated 15.10.12 before Hon’ble State Commission. The Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 3.12.13 restored the complaint with direction to the parties to appear before the Forum on 3.1.14. on receipt of the record the complaint was restored on its original number.
We have heard the complainant in person and counsel for Opposite Party and gone through the record.
Except the affidavit of the complainant, which is rebutted by the affidavit of Sh. Jagan Lal Bairwa, Assistant Manager for Opposite Party, there is nothing on record to prove that the Opposite Party illegally and unauthorizedly disconnected electricity supply to the meter of the complainant. The complinant neither in the affidavit nor in the complaint disclosed the date, month and year of disconnection of electricity supply to the meter of the complainant. Therefore, evasive the allegations, without time, date, month and year of disconnection of electricity supply to the meter of the complainant without corroboration from any document it cannot be said that the electricity supply to meter of the complainant was illegally and unauthorisedly disconnected by the Opposite Party. However, there is sufficient material on record that the complainant approached the Opposite Party for change of electricity meter installed in the premises of the complainant and the Opposite Party on20.2.2008 changed the meter. The complainant has failed to prove any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Party.
Therefore, there is no merit in the complaint and the complaint is hereby dismissed.
Order pronounced on :05.09.2016
(PUNEET LAMBA) (URMILA GUPTA) (R.S. BAGRI)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.