Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/310/2012

Rukmani wd/o late Sh.Shiv Kumar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Sharma

05 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DIaSPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 310  of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 26.03.2012.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 05.09.2016.

Rukmani Devi wife of late Sh. Shiv Kumar resident of Adarsh Nagar, Camp, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                             …Complainant.

                            Versus

S.D.O. Sub Division No.1, UHBVN Limited Yamuna Nagar                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ...Respondent  

 

BEFORE          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

Present:  Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant. 

               Sh. Ajay Arya, Advocate, counsel for respondent.

           

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.   

2.                    Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is a poor widow lady and an electricity connection bearing No. YY15/0617PB stands in her name and she is paying her electricity bill regularly. It has been further mentioned that after the death of her father-in-law Sh. Madan Mohan, house situated in 300 sq. yards fell to the share of his four (4) sons namely Shiv Kumar, Vinay Sharma, Mukesh and Anil, out of which Shiv Kumar and Vinay Sharma had also expired. A electricity connection bearing account no. YY15/0035P-T which was standing in the name of deceased Madan Mohan was disconnected due to arrears and after his death, the arrear of said connection was transferred in the account bearing no. YY15/602 M-A which was standing in the name of deceased Vinay Sharma. And after the death of Vinay Sharma the amount of arrear has been transferred illegally in the account of complainant Rukmani Devi whereas it should be transferred in the account of Mukesh Kumar and Anil Kumar because the said portion of the house in which the said electricity connection was installed is in possession of Mukesh Sharma and Anil Kumar. It has been further mentioned that due to threatening and apprehension of disconnection of the supply of the electricity, the complainant had deposited near about Rs. 38700/- with the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) in installments but now the OP is adamant to disconnect the supply of the electricity connection on the ground either to deposit the entire amount otherwise they will disconnect the electricity supply of the complainant. Lastly, it has been prayed that an amount of Rs. 38700/- which has been deposited by the complainant be refunded to her and all the amounts/dues which were in the name of deceased Madan Mohan and Vinay Sharma be declared as illegal and same may kindly be quashed from the bill of complainant and also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.  

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has no cause of action and on merit it has been mentioned that complainant is defaulter of Rs. 38805/- as on 03/2012. However, it has been admitted to the extent that an electricity connection bearing account no. YY15/0035 in the name of Madan Mohan and electricity connection bearing no.YY15/602 in the name of Vinay Sharma were standing in the same premises. There are two (2) more electricity connections in the same premises in the name of Mukesh Kumar and Rukmani Devi. It has been further admitted that the defaulting amount Rs. 38349/-of Madan Mohan and defaulting amount of Rs. 13,298/- of Vinay Sharma has been transferred in the account of complainant as per rule of UHBVN Limited being same premises. Lastly prayed, for dismissal of complaint as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP. 

4.                     In support of her version counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A and documents such as photo copy of payment receipt Annexure C-1, Photo copy of bill dated 22.02.2011 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of bill dated 22.06.2011 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of bill dated 23.10.2010 as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of bill dated 22.12.2010 as Annexure C-5,  Photo copy of bill dated 23.04.2011 as Annexure C-6 in the name of Rukmani Devi, copy of bill in the name of Madan Mohan dated 23.08.2008 as Annexure C-7, Bill in the name of Vinay Sharma dated 22.02.2009 as Annexure C-8, Bill dated 28.02.2012 as Annexure C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence photo copy of ledger standing in the name of Madan Mohan as Annexure R-1, photo copy of ledger/account statement standing in the name of Vinay Sharma as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     After hearing both the parties and going through the documents as well as pleadings, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP as it is admitted case of the OP that an amount of Rs. 38349/- was due against the deceased Madan Mohan having electricity connection bearing account No. YY15/0035P-T which was disconnected vide PDCO in the year November, 2008 due to non-payment of bill. It has been further admitted by the OP that defaulted amount of deceased Madan Mohan was transferred in the account of Vinay Sharma bearing account No.YY15/602 and this connection was also disconnected vide PDCO due to non-payment of total  amounting to Rs. 51647/-( Rs.38349 + Rs.13298) in the month of April, 2009. Further, it has also been admitted by the OP that the said defaulting amount of Rs. 51647/- has been transferred in the account of complainant Smt. Rukmani Devi wife of deceased Shiv Kumar in the month of November, 2010. The arguments advanced by the counsel for the OP that the said defaulting amount has been transferred in the account of complainant Rukmani Devi being same premises is not tenable as the OP has totally failed to prove that complainant Smt. Rukmani Devi had ever used the electricity for which the consumption bill amounting to Rs. 38349/- in respect of Madan Mohan and further electricity consumption bill amounting to Rs. 13298/- in respect of Sh. Vinay Sharma were outstanding. Mere on the ground that the complainant Rukmani Devi is living in some portion of the same premises, it cannot be presumed that she might have used the electricity in respect of electricity connection bearing No. YY15/0035P-T (Madan Mohan) YY15/0602M-A (Vinay Sharma). No cogent evidence has been filed by the OP that all the family members were living together and using the one electricity connection standing in the name of deceased Madan Mohan and after that deceased Vinay Sharma. From the perusal of pleadings, it is clearly evident that Rukmani Devi is having separate electricity connection in her name from the very beginning.

8.                     Counsel for the OP totally failed to convince this forum that when a huge amount was standing in the name of deceased Madan Mohan since the year 2004, then why that electricity connection was not disconnected during life time of deceased Madan Mohan and further why the defaulting amount was not recovered from deceased Vinay Sharma during his life time in the year 2008 when the defaulting amount was transferred in his account which is evident from the copy of ledger Annexure R-2. Moreover, from the perusal of photo copy of ledger, it is clearly evident that arrear amount of deceased Madan Mohan and Vinay Sharma was relating to the period of November 2008 and April 2009 and the same has been transferred in the account of complainant Rukmani Devi after a gap of near about 2 years which is patently illegal as the OP has no right to recover the said amount from the complainant who is paying her own electricity bills regularly without any fault.

9.                     In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the OP has no right to recover the defaulting amount of Rs. 51647/- (Rs.38349 + Rs.13298) of Madan Mohan as well as Vinay Sharma from the complainant. As such the complainant is entitled for relief.  However, the higher authority of the OPs is at liberty to recover the same from the defaulting officer after conducting the proper inquiry if so advised.

10.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP not to charge the amount of Rs. 51647/- from the complainant on account of defaulting amount of Madan Mohan as well as Vinay Sharma and the same is hereby quashed. The OP is further directed to overhaul the account of complainant after deleting the amount of Rs. 51647/- as well as surcharge thereon and adjust the amount whatsoever charged from the complainant in this account in future bills. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 05.09.2016.

(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

 PRESIDENT  

                       

(S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.