Haryana

Sonipat

223/2014

KIRAN GARG W/O RAM BABU - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O. of Sub Division UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

KIRAN GARG

28 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                                     Complaint No.223 of 2014

Instituted on: 04.09.2014                    

Date of order: 27.04.2015

 

 

Kiran Garg wife of Ram Babu son of Suraj Bhan resident of H.No.1037/23, Gali Inderlok, Gur Mandi, Old Rohtak road, Sonepat.

…Complainant.          Versus

SDO UHBVN Ltd., Industrial Area, Indra Colony, Sonepat.

                                                                                                …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Complainant Kiran Garg in person.

           Sh. Jaideep Kaushik Advocate for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          Prabha Wati-Member.

           D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that two electricity connections are installed and both are for domestic purposes.  Electricity connection number KM-5, new number is I-30-2579-Y which belongs to her father-in-law Suraj Bhan, is also being used by the complainant for domestic purposes. But despite this, the respondent on 12.8.2014 has issued the bill for Rs.33906/- to the complainant after considering the electricity connection for commercial purposes.  The complainant has alleged this act of the respondent to be wrong and illegal. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondent has submitted that electricity connection no.IA-30-2579 has been released for domestic purpose but the same was being used for non-domestic purposes at the time of checking.  An amount of Rs.32173/- is still due and payable to the Nigam against connection no.IA-30-2579. At the time of checking on 11.2.2014, the supply was being used for NDS purposes as one school namely Sunshine Preparatory was running.  Some photographs were taken and the complainant refused to sign the checking report.  The complainant instead of making the payment of Rs.33906/- , has filed the false and frivolous complaint against the respondent, whereas the demand of this amount by the respondent has been correctly raised.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.  

         The respondent has placed on record checking report as Ex.R1, sundry report Ex.R2 and photographs of the house Ex.R3 to Ex.R9 and CD Ex.R10.

         At the time of arguments, the complainant has also produced CD and some photographs.

         The main contention of the respondent is that the complainant is using electricity energy for commercial purposes.  Hence her bills were issued by the department after considering the electricity connection as NDS.  After that calculation was made and demand of Rs.32173/- from the complainant was raised and this amount was rightly added in the complainant’s bill.

         As per Ex.C5, the complainant has got increased her load from 2 KW to 4 KW in the year 2013. 

         The bare perusal of the statement itself shows that the whole calculation was made after considering the load as 4 KW.  The photographs  produced by the complainant shows that no commercial activity was going on in the house of the complainant.  There are two meters installed in the premises i.e. one for the ground floor and another for the first floor.  The present dispute is regarding the first floor.

         An application Ex.C3 dated 18.3.2014  was moved by Shri Suraj Bhan, father-in-law of the complainant.  Report was made by one Madan Mohan on 18.3.2014 and is counter signed by the official after confirming the same on the same day i.e. 18.3.2014.  C.A. of the department also made an endorsement dated 11.8.2014 and 19.8.2014 and also made a note “Now the supply used for DS purpose and consumer also take the connection for DS purpose. So charge into DS from NDS”.  Checking report was prepared on 11.2.2014 and the above mentioned endorsement were made on 18.3.2014 i.e. after one month.  So, in our view, the calculation on which the respondent is relying upon is wrong, illegal and totally unjustified. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint with the direction to the respondent to issue the bill to the complainant after considering the connection of the complainant for DS purposes only and to adjust the amount which has been paid by the complainant during the pendency of the present case under NDS category in the future bills of the complainant.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copy of this order he provided to both the parties free of cost.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati) (DV Rathi)            (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF, Member, DCDRF           President, DCDRF

Sonepat.      Sonepat.                Sonepat.

 

Announced 27.04.2015