Karan Singh 48 years s/o Rattan Singh filed a consumer case on 10 Nov 2016 against SDO (op) UHBVNL in the Yamunanagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/171/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 18 Nov 2016.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR
Complaint No. 171 of 2014.
Date of institution: 26.03.2014
Date of decision: 10.11.2016
Karan Singh aged about 48 years son of Sh. Rattan Singh, resident of village Marwa Kalan, Sub Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.
…Complainant.
Versus
…Respondents
BEFORE: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.
SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. SS Saini, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Zile Singh, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER
1 The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents ( hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to make the necessary correction in the electricity bill dated 10.02.2014 in question by deleting wrong and illegal amount of Rs.29,686/- and to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.
2. Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No.Y35JB133292L which is installed at the house of the complainant. The complainant was receiving the bills as per reading recorded by the meter in accordance with the consumption of the complainant and paying all the electricity bill regularly. There was nothing outstanding against the complainant. However, complainant received a bill No.3713 dated 10.02.2014 wherein a sum of Rs.29,686/- was added in the column of arrears, whereas no such amount was payable by the complainant. The units consumed in this bill having shown as 45 and as such the bill in question has been wrongly issued to the complainant which is liable to be quashed. The complainant made so many requests to the OPs Nigam but all in vain. Hence, this complaint.
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, complainant has no locus standi or cause of action against the OPs to file the present complaint; complainant has concealed the true and material facts. The true facts are that the electricity account bearing No. Y35JB133292L was released in the name of complainant and he is defaulter of payment of Rs. 31,223/-. The demand bill in question has been given to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption of the electricity energy, whereas the complainant remained failed to deposit the due amount, since 4/2010 till date and the defaulting amount has been adjusted in the bill in question. Thereby, the complainant is very much liable to pay the demand bill amount in question and the complaint is liable to be dismissed and on merit the contents of the complaint were controverted and plea in the preliminary objection was reiterated.
4. In support of the case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW/A and photocopy of Electricity Bill as Annexure C1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
5. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Pardeep Panwar, SDO (OP) as Annexure RW/A and copy of ledger as Annexure R1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
6. We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.
7. The only version of the complainant is that OPs Nigam has issued a wrong and illegal bill bearing No. No.3713 dated 10.02.2014 in which an amount of Rs.29,686/- has been wrongly added being arrear and the same is liable to be quashed but the version of the complainant is not tenable as from the perusal of bills bearing No.3713 dated 10.02.2014 as Annexure-C 1, it is duly evident that amount Rs.29,686/- has been added as arrear of the previous period/bill. From the perusal of ledger it is duly evident that complainant was not paying the bill from 04/2010 to till date. Further, learned counsel for complainant also failed to convince this Forum that in what manner the OPs Nigam is at fault. In the absence of any cogent evidence, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complaint has no merit.
8 Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order as to cost. Parties are left to bear to their own cost. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open court: 10.11.2016.
(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)
PRESIDENT
DCDRF Yamuna Nagar
(S.C.SHARMA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.