Haryana

StateCommission

A/526/2015

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAMESH KAUSHIK - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

24 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.526 of  2015

Date of the Institution: 12.06.2015

Date of Decision: 24.08.2015

 

1. The S.D.O. DHBVNL, Uttaritela Kalan, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, Bhiwani.
2. The Executive Engineer, DHBVNL Dadri, Tehsil Dadri, Distt. Bhiwani.
3. DHBVNL, Bhiwani through its Managing Director, Vidhut Nagar, Hisar.

                                                                   .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Rakesh Kaushik S/o Sh.Ram Chander Kaushik alias Chanda, R/o village Rampura,Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, Distt. Bhiwani.

                                                                             .….Respondent

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

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.B.D.Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants.

                    Mr.Rakesh Kaushik respondent in person.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that he was having electric connection No. B-36-RPID-0015 at his house for domestic purpose. Due to business activity he started residing at Delhi permanently.  He gave information to this effect to opposite parties (O.Ps.) and requested the Ops to disconnect supply.  It was assured that the supply would be stopped automatically.  Despite that bills used to be issued whereas it was printed thereupon that in case of non-payment supply would be disconnected.  Ultimately they issued bill No.989 dated 11.08.2009 for Rs.1,19,117/- which was altogether wrong and he was not  liable to pay that amount. O.Ps. stopped his file about new connection without payment of this bill of which they were not having right.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that he never requested to disconnect the supply, so the bill in question was issued.   Ultimately the supply was disconnected vide PDCO No.56/141 dated 23.10.2009.  The defaulting amount was Rs.1,35,175/-. Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (in short “ District Forum”) directed 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% per annum from the date of deposit till its final realization.

3.      to pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal on the ground that the premises of the complainant was found locked that is why the supply could not be disconnected.  He did not deposit the amount and bill in question was not illegal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused. 

6.      Complainant vehemently argued that in connection of his business he shifted to Delhi permanently.  He moved an application before the SDO having jurisdiction over this area to disconnect supply. It was assured that the supply would be disconnected by them, but, to his utter surprise he received bill No.989 for Rs.1,19,117/- as mentioned above.  It is specifically mentioned on the bills that in case of non-deposit of amount supply shall be disconnected.  When he did not deposit any amount why O.Ps. did not disconnect the supply.  From the perusal of the record that it is clear that house was locked.  It shows that he was not residing at the village.  So he is not liable to pay any amount and findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts.

7.      This argument is devoid of any force.  It is a case of no evidence.  Neither complainant nor O.Ps. have produced any evidence in support of their averments except affidavit attached  with complaint.  No affidavit was filed by the complainant after filing reply by O.Ps.  As per Section 13 (2) (b) (i) if OP denies or disputes the allegation contained in the complaint then complainant is supposed to produce evidence in support of the averments.  If no evidence is produced then averments of complainant cannot be presumed to be true.  For ready reference 13 (2) (b) (i) are reproduced as under:-

“(b) where the opposite party, on receipt of a copy  of the complaint, referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the  District forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute.

1. On the basis of evidence brought to its  notice by the complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegation contained in the complaint, or.”

8.      The complaint was presented on 06.06.2011 and thereafter no evidence was produced by any party.  Ultimately evidence of both the parties was closed by District Forum vide order dated 04.08.2014, which is reproduced as under:-

“Affidavit not filed. Today is last opportunity. Hence evidence of both parties is hereby closed.  Now to come upon 28.08.2014 for filing of written arguments.”

9.      When complainant has not produced his affidavit not to talk of any evidence, in support of his averments, his version cannot be accepted.  Complainant has not produced even impugned bills in evidence.  Two bills are shown as Ex.P-1 and P-2, but, date under there is 03.06.2011. It cannot be presumed that they were tendered in evidence because complaint was filed on 06.06.2011. 

10.    It was the bounden duty of the complainant to prove that he requested O.Ps. to disconnect supply.  He has not produced any evidence showing that he requested to disconnect connection. If O.Ps. have not  disconnected  the supply despite printed notice on the bill it does not mean that he is entitled for the relief claimed.  It is alleged by O.Ps. that house of complainant was found locked at every visit.  Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration that there is no evidence on the file, even affidavit of complainant after filing of reply, to prove the averments raised in the complaint, so these arguments are of no avail.

11.    As a sequel to above discussion, when there is no evidence on the file impugned order dated  27.03.2015 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.1100/- 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.

 

August 24th, 2015

Mr.Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.

 

F.A. No.526 of 2015

 

Present:-    Mr.B.D.Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants.

                    Mr.Rakesh Kaushik respondent in person.

 

                    Delay of 26 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application filed for condonation of delay.

 

August 24th, 2015

Mr.Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.