Haryana

StateCommission

A/509/2015

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRABHU DAYAL - Opp.Party(s)

N.P.S.KOHLI

21 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal    No  :    509 of  2015

Date of Institution  :      05.06.2015  

Date of Decision    :      21.12.2015

  

Sub Divisional Officer “OP” Sub Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, District Mahendergarh.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Prabhu Dayal s/o Sh. Sukhdev, Resident of Village Pathwara, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

CORAM:

                             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                                                                                          

Present:               Shri N.P.S. Kohli, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri J.P. Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated January 27^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short ‘the District Forum’), in Consumer Complaint No.32 of 2013.

2.      Prabhu Dayal-complainant/respondent, was having electric connection bearing account No.NG51-0569 (old No.NGAP-73) at his tubewell and was paying the bills regularly to Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘DHBVNL’)-Opposite Party/appellant. However, in the bill dated 8^th October, 2012 (Annexure C-3), the DHBVNL added an amount of Rs.72,175/- in the column of Sundry Charges. He approached the DHBVNL to correct the bill but of no avail. He filed complaint.

3.      The DHBVNL in its reply stated that Rajbir-son of the complainant was having commercial electricity connection No.ST-11-2008 (NDS) at his shop, he did not pay the bill of Rs.71,597/- with respect to his shop and the said amount was added in the bill of the complainant vide sundry No.30/37. Thus, justifying the impugned bill, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint directing the DHBVNL not to charge the bill of Rs.72,175/-. Hence, appeal.

5.      Learned counsel for the DHBVNL has argued that since the impugned amount of Rs.72,175/- belonged to the electric connection of his son (Rajbir), therefore the DHBVNL was justified by adding the same in the bill of the complainant.

6.      The contention raised is not tenable. Indisputably, the complainant was neither the guarantor nor had undertaken to pay the amount due towards Rajbir Singh. Therefore, the DHBVNL was not justified in adding the defaulted bill of Rajbir in the account of the complainant.

7.      In view of the above, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

 

Announced 21.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL