Haryana

Sonipat

CC/120/2016

Rajesh S/o Ram Kishan S/o Jage Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O. OP Sub Division U.H.B.V.N.L. - Opp.Party(s)

Mannu Malik

03 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                Complaint No.120 of 2016

Instituted on: 25.04.2016                                                     

Date of order:  03.06.2016

 

 

Rajesh son of Ram Kishan son of Jage Ram resident of Landa Colony, Kundli, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.          Versus

SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division UHBVN  Kundli, distt. Sonepat.

 

                                                                                                …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Mannu Malik Adv. for complainant.

           Ms. Yuvika, Advocate for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that one electricity connection no.KU-25-1968-H (old no.RR-13-2363)is lying installed in the house and the said connection stands in the name of his father namely Shri Ram Kishan who has expired on 14.2.2016.  In the month of June/July, 2011 the meter became defective and it stopped giving consumption reading.  His father Shri Ram Kishan has moved an application in this regard to the respondent.  The meter was checked by the official of the respondent, who made a report on the back side of the application on 21.9.2012 to the effect “working dead stop”. The complainant’s father has deposited Rs.1090/- towards meter testing fees and Rs.900/- as cost of the meter. On 20.11.2012 the meter was checked by YMPL and as per their report, the same was found slow by 92.17%.  The respondent has issued a wrong and illegal notice no.5134 dated 29.1.2013 vide which an amount of Rs.324891/- was imposed as penalty alleging unauthorized use of electricity.  Civil suit was filed by the complainant’s father, which was dismissed by the learned civil court on 8.10.2015. Similarly the appeal filed against the judgment and decree was also dismissed on 31.3.2016.  After dismissal of the appeal, the respondent threatened to recover the amount of Rs.324891/- vide notice no.5134 dated 29.1.2013 and this wrongful act of the respondent has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondent has submitted that the notice no.5134 dated 29.1.2013 amounting to Rs.324891/- is legal and has been sent to the complainant as per rules of the Nigam.  The respondent has every right to recover their amount from the complainant.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands 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.  

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondent only to cause unnecessary harassment and mental agony, has sent the wrong and illegal notice no.5134 dated 29.1.2013 thereby demanding an amount of Rs.324891/- from the complainant.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the notice no.5134 dated 29.1.2013 amounting to Rs.324891/- is legal and has been sent to the complainant as per rules of the Nigam.  The respondent has every right to recover their amount from the complainant.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent.

         In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to the respondent.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to overhaul the account of the complainant for the period 1/12 to 11/12 any or and defective period after taking the base of reading for the period 1/13 to 11/13.  The respondent is directed to issue the revised bill to the complainant after overhauling the account of the complainant as directed above. The respondent is also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousand) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. However, this amount of compensation is hereby directed to be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant.

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

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

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                    (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF,                    President, DCDRF

Sonepat.                          Sonepat.

Dated 03.06.2016