Haryana

StateCommission

FA/526/2015

Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rakesh Kaushik - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      526 of 2015

Date of Institution:      12.06.2015

Date of Decision :       20.01.2017

1.     Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Atela Kalan, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, Bhiwani. 

2.     The Executive Engineer, Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Dadri, Tehsil Dadri, District Bhiwani.

3.     Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Bhiwani through its Managing Director, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

Rakesh Kaushik s/o Sh. Ram Chander Kaushik @ Chanda, Resident of Village Rampura, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. 

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:                    Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for appellants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

          Rakesh Kuashik-complainant (respondent herein) filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short ‘the District Forum) averring that he is having a electric domestic connection bearing account No.B-36-RPID-0015 and was paying the bills regularly.  He started living in Delhi and therefore approached the Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL)-Opposite Parties/appellants to disconnect the connection. The opposite parties assured that the connection would be disconnected. To the surprise of the complainant, he received bill No.989 dated 11.08.2009 for Rs.1,19,117/- which was payable up to 28.08.2009.  The complainant also applied to the opposite parties for new connection. The complainant protested the above said bill. Instead of rectifying the bill, the opposite parties refused to release the new connection to the complainant on the ground that he was a defaulter of the bill in respect of connection bearing account No.B-36-RPID-0015.

2.                The opposite parties contested the complaint by filing written version. It was stated that the complainant had not paid the bill from 4/2000 to 23.10.2009 with respect to his connection bearing account No.B-36-RPID-0015 and the amount of Rs.1,35,175/- was due towards the said connection and for that reason he was denied the new connection. The complainant never approached the opposite parties to disconnect connection No.B-36-RPID-0015. Denying allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide order dated 27^th March, 2015 allowed complaint directing the opposite parties as under:-

“1.     To recover the bill amount for the period 4/2000 to 23.10.2009 on minimum consumption basis without surcharge.

2.      To refund the amount, if any, deposited in excess by the complainant along with interest @ 12%

4.                The opposite parties filed the instant appeal before this Commission which was entrusted to the Additional Bench.  Hon’ble Members gave dissenting version vide order dated 24^th August, 2015 viz.  Shri R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member, allowed the appeal and ordered for dismissal of the complaint while the other member Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, dismissed the appeal. The file was entrusted to the undersigned in view of dissenting orders.

5.                Shri B.D. Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties has stated that the Government of Haryana has launched a waiver scheme under which though the liability of the complainant works out to Rs.1,35,175/-, however in view of the waiver scheme the liability works out to rs.22,000/- approximately and has placed the scheme on the file.

6.                The appeal is disposed of observing that if the complainant so desires, he can avail the benefit of the scheme with further concession that if the complainant so opts to avail the scheme, the appellants-opposite parties shall give him concession of paying the amount in instalments.

7.                The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 

 

 

 

January 20th, 2017

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

CL