Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/278/2013

Ranbir Singh S/o Narata Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O.Op.Sub Divn.UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Bubka

30 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

                                                                                    Complaint No.278 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of Institution: 11.4.2013.

                                                                                    Date of Decision:30.8.2017.

Ranbir Singh aged about 60 years son of Sh.Narata Ram, resident of H.No.1097-D, Usha Colony, Jagadhri, tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                 ..Complainant

                  Versus

1.         SDO Op Sub Div. UHBVNL, Jagadhri City, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

2.         XEN op. Division, UHBVNL, Yamuna Nagar, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

3.         Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sec-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its Chairman/MD.

 

                                                                                                              ..Respondents.

 

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

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

 

Present: Sh.R.K.Bubka, Advocate for complainant.

              Sh.Zile Singh, Advocate, for respondents.

 

ORDER   :       (SATPAL, PRESIDENT).

 

1.                     The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter the respondents shall be referred as OPs). 

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is consumer of the Ops having electric connection no.Y31JG170255W.  Previously, a connection No.BS64 was installed in the name of the complainant in which arrear of connection No.JS448 has been added by the Ops wrongly and illegally but the complainant deposited Rs.8000/- on 29.7.2006, Rs.10000/- on 29.9.2006, Rs.15000/- on 5.12.2007 in account No.BS64 and thereafter an amount of Rs.10000/- on 28.3.2011, Rs.10000/- on 16.5.2011 and Rs.10000/- on 26.7.2011 was deposited in account No.JS448.  The complainant had deposited

more than the amount than the alleged demand made by the Ops and it has been assured by the Ops that the excess amount will be refunded to the complainant after adjustment of the accounts.  But the Ops illegally and wrongly added an amount of Rs.36949/- in the account of connection bearing No.Y31JG170255W.  The complainant requested the Ops to supply the statement of account and gave an application for seeking information with regard to account Nos.BS64 and JS448 under RTI Act 2005 but they did not supply the requisite information even the matter was brought to the notice of the Higher Authority.  The Ops deliberately, wrongly and illegally sent the above said bill for Rs.36,949/- whereas the complainant has been paying the bills regularly and the complainant is also willing to pay the actual consumption charges besides the amount of Rs.36949/-.  The complainant requested the Ops to accept the actual consumption charges after deducting Rs.36949/- but they paid no heed to the genuine request of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint by directing the Ops not to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant bearing account No.J31JG170255W and to withdraw the bill of Rs.36949/- and not to charge the surcharge over and the above mentioned amount and further to pay Rs.30000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as Rs.5500/- as cost of litigation.

3.                     Upon notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint; the complainant has not come to the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands; the present complaint has been filed just to harass the Ops.  On merits the Ops admitted that the complainant is consumer of the Ops and alleged that it is correct that previously a connection No.BS64 was installed in the name of the complainant in which an amount of Rs.36274/- was defaulting amount up to 6/2008 at the reading of 48317 against the complainant regarding his account No.BS64 but the same was not deposited by the complainant despite of repeated demand of the respondents.  Thereafter the complainant did not consume electricity and his above said connection was permanently disconnected.  The above said defaulting amount of Rs.36247/- was transferred to account JS-448 of the complainant.  The complainant deposited Rs.10000/- in 3/11, Rs.10000/- in 5/11 and Rs.10000/- in 7/11 regarding account no.JS-448 as per copy of ledger maintained by the Ops and same were adjusted in his account and after adjustment of the amounts deposited by the complainant with the Ops, there remained outstanding balance against the complainant and complainant continued to consume the electricity. There was defaulting amount of Rs.29438/- up to 5/2010 against the complainant regarding his account No.JS-448 but the same was not deposited by the complainant.  Thereafter, the amount of Rs.29438/- has correctly been transferred to account No.JC-17/0255 by the Ops.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

4.                     To prove the case, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A, documents such as photocopy of bill as Annexure C.1, Photocopy of bank account statement as Annexure C.2 to C.7, copy of information under RTI Act as Annexure C.8 & C.9, photocopy of bills as Annexure C.10 & C.11, Information under RTI Act as Annexure C.12 & C.13, photocopy of ledger as Annexure C.14 and photo copy of notice dated 20.12.2010 as annexure C.15, copy of A/c JC-17/0255 as annexure C.16 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

5.                     To prove the version of written statement, the counsel for Ops tendered into evidence short affidavit of Shri Vikasdeep Sharma, SDO as Anenxure RW/A and document such as photocopy of ledger as Annexure R.1 to R.4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Ops.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that since the complainant had already deposited the above said amount, he might have deposited the outstanding amount Rs.36,949/- if the Ops had disclosed the same in time but the Ops did not redress the grievances of the complainant even after demanding the information under RTI Act.  Now, the Ops have demanded the amount Rs.36949/- along with surcharge for which the Ops are not entitled because since very beginning the complainant has been requesting the Ops to accept the actual consumption charges except the disputed amount but they paid no heed, hence, this complaint and prayed for acceptance of complaint.

7.                     On the other hand the counsel for the Ops argued that the amount in question is relating to his previous electric connection which was disconnected and later on the said amount was transferred to the present electric connection of the complainant and the Ops has every right to recover the defaulting amount and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

8.                     After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file.  It has been found that the complainant is in default of payment of current consumption charges but from the perusal of the RTI application as well as information supplied by the Ops, there may be some deficiency/irregularity on the part of the Ops also as no notice has ever been issued by the Ops to the complainant to deposit the defaulting amount.  Further, the Ops have not disconnected the electric connection of the complainant and had not issued any notice to him but it can not be said that the complainant is exempted from depositing the defaulting amount because it is the duty of the complainant also to deposit the electricity charges since he is using the electricity.  However, to save the loss to the exchequer of the State Government as well as in the interest of justice, we therefore, direct the Ops to accept the defaulting amount from the complainant without surcharge.  The Ops will serve a notice of payment after overhauling the account of the complainant and after preparing the bill for the defaulting amount without surcharge.  On receipt of fresh bill from the Ops, the complainant will deposit the defaulting amount without surcharge within one month from the date of demand to be raised by the Ops failing which the Ops shall have the right to charge the amount as per rules. Complaint stands disposed off accordingly.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs.  File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court:30.08.2017.

                                                                                  

                                                                                   (SATPAL)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

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

  MEMBER.                                                              MEMBER