Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1210/2012

Avtar Singh S/o. Darshan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O ,U.H.B.V.N - Opp.Party(s)

S.D.kishore

23 Jun 2017

ORDER

hBEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 1210 of 2012

                                                                                    Date of institution: 19.11.2012          

                                                                                    Date of decision: 23.06.2017

 

Avtar Singh son of Shri Darshan Singh, aged about 50 years, resident of house No.300, Roop Nagar, Colony Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

…Complainant.

 

                                            Versus

1. SDO UHBVN, City Sub Division, Near Labour Colony, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Chairman UHBVN Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                                … Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND……………… MEMBER

 

 

Present:           Shri SD Kishore, Advocate for complainant.

           Shri Jaipal Singh, Advocate for OPs.

 

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                      The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs).

2.               Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that complainant is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No.Y31JC133226K and he is paying all the electricity bill regularly from last many years without any default. On 23.10.2012, the OPs Nigam illegally sent a bill of Rs.37784/- to the complainant, upon which complainant contacted the OP No.1 and requested to correct the same but the OP No.1 put off the matter on one pretext or the other and refused to correct the impugned bill which constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for directing the OPs not to recover the bill amount of Rs.37,784/- dated 23.10.2012 from the complainant and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                   In support of his complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A, photocopy of bill dated 23.10.2012 as Annexure C-1 and closed his evidence.

4.                     Upon notice, OPs Nigam appeared and filed its written statement jointly taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; a bill dated 8/2012 was issued to the complainant for a sum of Rs.9620/- out of which a sum of Rs.6000/- was paid by the complainant through cheque dated 18.09.2012 and the same was sent to the banker of the OPs for encashment of the same but the same has been dishonoured by the banker of the complainant and as such the said amount stands unpaid. It has been further mentioned that the premises of the complainant was checked by the staff of the OPs Nigam and the complainant was found using unauthorized load and the load was found at the spot 8.433 KW whereas the sanctioned load of the complainant was 2.00KW as such a load of 6.433KW was being used as unauthorized load by the complainant. As such a sum of Rs.9131/- was imposed on account of unauthorized load used by the complainant along with charges of ACD Rs.3500/- and cost of meter of Rs.3350/- i.e. Total amount of Rs.15981/- was debited in the account of the complainant. The said amount has not been paid by the complainant as such a sum of Rs.37,784/- was outstanding against the complainant upto 10/2012. The complainant has also not paid the bills for the month of 12/2012 and 2/2013 and a total sum of Rs.45,009/- is outstanding against the complainant upto February, 2013 and on merit all the contents of the complaint were controverted and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                     In support of his case, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Som Nath, Lineman, UHBVN as Annexure RW/A, attested copy of ledger account as Annexure R-1, photocopy of entry of sundry debit note amounting Rs.15981/- as Annexure R-2, photocopy of sundry debit note amounting Rs.6451/- as Annexure R-3, Authority Letter as Annexure R-4, checking report as Annexure R-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                       It is not disputed that complainant was having a domestic Electricity connection bearing account No.Y31JC133226K.

8.                    The only grievance of the complainant is that the OP Nigam has wrongly and illegally issued a bill dated 23.10.2012 amounting Rs.37,784/- to  the complainant which is liable to be quashed.           

9.                 On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued at length that OPs Nigam has rightly issued the impugned bill to the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs draw our attention towards the sundry debit note as Annexure R-3 and argued that in the month of 8/2012, a bill of Rs.9620/- was issued to the complainant out of which complainant paid Rs.6000/- through cheque but the said cheque was dishonoured due to which an amount of Rs.6451/- was debited in the account of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs further draw our attention towards the checking report (Annexure R-5) and argued that in the presence of the complainant the premises of the complainant was checked and it was found that complainant was using unauthorized load of 8.433 KW against the sanctioned load of 2 KW  and on this account an amount of Rs.9131/- was levied against the complainant, beside this an amount of Rs.3500/- on account of ACD and Rs.3,350/- as cost of meter i.e. total amount of Rs.15,981/- was levied against the complainant vide sundry debit note (Annexure R-2). Lastly, learned counsel for the OPs argued that complainant has totally failed to make the payment against this bill to the OPs Nigam. Learned counsel for the OPs argued that as the complainant was using unauthorized load, hence, this forum has also no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. We have perused the checking report (Annexure R-5) and as per this checking report, complainant was using unauthorized load of 8.433 KW against the sanctioned load of 2.00 KW. This report has been prepared by the staff of the OPs in the presence of the complainant as this report bears the signature of the complainant himself. So, it cannot be presumed that this report has been falsely prepared by the OPs Nigam. Further more, the complainant has not challenged this report by way of filing any rejoinder of the written statement or otherwise. Further, from the perusal of debit note memo (Annexure R-3), it is also duly evident that cheque amounting Rs.6000/- issued by the complainant was dishonoured due to which OPs Nigam has debited Rs.6451/- in the account of complainant. These facts were in the knowledge of the complainant from the very beginning but the complainant has totally failed to disclose the same in his complaint. So, we are of the view that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. Further the OPs Nigam has duly justified the amount of Rs.22,432/- (Rs.15981/- + Rs.6451/-) levied in the impugned bill dated 23.10.2012 against the complainant, Whereas the complainant has totally failed to point out any ambiguity in the calculation or amount imposed by the OPs.

11                    Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we of the considered view that there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Pronounced in open court: 23.06.2017                                  

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG),  

                                                                                     PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                                     YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI

 

 

                        (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)           (S.C. SHARMA)

                         MEMBER                                           MEMBER