Haryana

StateCommission

A/1014/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANTOSH DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

AMARDEEP HOODA

18 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1014 of 2015

Date of Institution:        27.11.2015

Date of Decision :         18.05.2016

 

Sub Divisional Officer (Op.) City Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Jhajjar, Tehsil and District Jhajjar.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Smt. Santosh Devi d/o Sh. Umrao Singh, Resident of Mohalla Mota Gate, Jhajjar, Tehsil and District Jhajjar.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Amardeep Hodda, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Ravi Kumar, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This Opposite Party’s appeal is directed against the order dated June 11^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.20 of 2014.

2.      Santosh Devi-complainant/respondent obtained domestic electric connection bearing account No.H11G601035P from Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘UHBVNL’)-Opposite Party/appellant. She was paying the bills to the UHBVNL regularly.

3.      The complainant received bill dated July 27^th, 2013 (Exhibit P-2), for Rs.25,589/- wherein the amount of Rs.24,262/- was added as ‘Sundry Charges’. The complainant approached the UHBVNL to correct the bill but the UHBVNL instead of correcting the bill, sent the subsequent bill dated November 26^th, 2013 (Exhibit P-3) for Rs.30,764/- in which the amount of Rs.28,499/- was shown under the heading ‘Sundry Charges’.  Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.      The UHBVNL in its reply pleaded that the premises of the complainant is situated in an unauthorized and unapproved colony. So, the complainant is liable to pay the amount.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned allowed complaint. The operative part of the order is as under:-

“..We, therefore, direct the respondent not to recover the amount of Rs.24,262/- as raised by the respondent through bill dated 27.7.2013 vide Ex.P-2 along with any further surcharge/penalty etc, if any, imposed upon the aforesaid amount in the subsequent bills. However, the amount already found deposited by the complainant, if any, towards the above aforesaid amount shall be adjusted by the respondent in the future billing of complainant. The complainant had to file the present complaint due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and as such, has suffered mental agony and harassment. Hence, we further direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs.2000/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.”

5.      Indisputably, the disputed amount was demanded from the complainant on the ground that the house of complainant is situated in unauthorized and unapproved colony. No notification has been placed on the file by the UHBVNL to prove that complainant’s house falls in unauthorized and unapproved colony. In view of this, the UHBVNL is not entitled to charge any amount on account of Sundry Charges. No case for interference in the impugned order is made.

6.      Hence, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.2560/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent/complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 18.05.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL