Haryana

StateCommission

A/47/2017

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

OMICRON ENGINEERING CO. - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

09 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.47 of 2017

Date of Institution:19.12.2016 and 13.01.2017

Date of decision:09.02.2017

 

1. DHBVNL through its Executive Engineer,Sub-Urban Division, HUDA, Shopping Complex, Sector 31, Gurgaon.
2. The S.D.O. DHBVNL, Maruti Industrial Area, Sub-division, Sirhol Mor, Sector 18, Old Delhi Road, Gurgaon.
3. The Superintending Engineer, DHBVNK, Operation Circle, Opposite Dev Cinema, Mehrauli road, Gurgaon.

 

…Appellants

Versus

 

M/s Omicron engineering Company Plot No.312, Udyog Vihar, Phase 2, Plot No.312, Gurgaon (New Address Hamilton Court, DLF Phase IV, Gurgaon, Plot NO.411-A through its partner Shri Sanjay Aggarwal.

…Respondent

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mrs.Alka Joshi, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 23.06.2016 vide which the appellants are directed to refund Rs.66,388/- alongwith interest etc. as mentioned therein.

2.      It was alleged in the complaint that O.Ps.-appellants issued memo No.1253 dated 17.07.2008 for settlement of dispute outside the court and deposited Rs.66388/- whereas the matter was already  decided in his favour on 28.03.2007 and he was not liable to pay any amount. To escape from the disconnection of electricity connection he deposited that amount so they be directed to refund that amount.

3.      In reply it was alleged by O.Ps. that complainant was directed to produce original receipt qua Rs.66388/- so that the amount could be refunded, but, he did not produce the same.  So, the amount could not be refunded.

4.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer  Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (In short “District Forum”)  passed the aforesaid order.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.ps.-appellants have preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for appellants vehemently argued that he deposited Rs.66,388/- on his own after issuance of notice dated 17.07.2008 for settlement out of court. Had the amount been not due towards him, he would not have deposited the same. Learned District Forum wrongly directed to refund this amount.

8.      This arguments are of no avail.  In reply it is no where alleged that the amount was due towards complainant.  It is alleged that he did not produce original receipt and that is why the same could not be refunded.  It amounts to admission about refund of amount.  More so vide order dated 28.03.2007 the department was directed to refund the amount deposited by him.  It was also admitted during arguments that complainant deposited Rs.49915/- after the demand. So, nothing was due towards complainant.  Finding of learned District forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

9.        The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

February 09th, , 2017	Urvashi Agnihotri Member		R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member
S.K