Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/372/2014

Smt. Manjinder Kaur age 48 years w/o Shri Hoshiar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO UHBVNL, - Opp.Party(s)

Angrish Sharma

01 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 372 of 2014.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 03.09.2014    

                                                                                          Date of decision: 01.12.2016

 

Smt. Manjinder Kaur aged about 48 years wife of Shri Hoshiar Singh son of Shri Azad Singh resident of village Bilaspur, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

          …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. SDO,  U.H.B.V.N.L, Sub Division, Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Chairman, U.H.B.V.N.L. Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula, District Panchkula.
3. Smt. Ritu Rani wife of Shri Gulshan Kumar son of Shri Karan Singh, resident of village Bhamnoli, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                             …Respondents

 

 

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

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

 

Present:           Sh.Vikas Kamboj, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. Dharamvir Singh, Advocate for respondents.

                         

ORDER

 

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

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant had purchased one residential house having area 117 square yards situated in Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar vide sale deed No.6243 dated 19.01.2012 against valuable sale consideration from previous owner i.e. OP No.3. In the said premises an electricity connection bearing account No.JB 11/2436 was standing in the name of OP No.3. At the time of purchasing the said house the OP No.3 stated that the premises is free from any kind of liability or bars including electricity. After the purchase of said house, the complainant consumed the electricity and paid the electricity bills regularly. The OPs No.1 & 2 sent a Bill No.1899 dated 11.08.2013 amounting to Rs.28,423/- including Rs.27,144/- towards sundry charges. After receiving the bill, the complainant contacted the OP No.1 who disclosed that the said amount is of previous electricity meter installed in the said premises which has been adjusted in her account. The complainant requested the OPs No.1 & 2 not to charge the said amount from the complainant but the OPs No. 1 & 2 flatly refused to listen the genuine request of the complainant. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint of the complainant is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complaint of the complainant is false and frivolous; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and have suppressed the true and material facts and on merit it has been mentioned that on 22.04.2013 the premises of the complainant was checked in the presence of family members of the complainant. As per report prepared by the checking party, which was duly signed by the husband of complainant namely Hoshiyar Singh, it was found that there was another meter in the said house which was removed on defaulting amount of Rs.27,144/-. Now, there is another meter installed in the name of Smt. Ritu Rani wife of Gulshan Kumar, Bilaspur bearing account No.JB11/2436P in the same premises. So, the checking party directed the SDO (OP) Bilaspur to recover/transfer the defaulting amount in the running account No.JB11/2436P. As such the amount of Rs.27144/- has been rightly transferred in the account No.JB-11/2436P being same premises. Rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of her case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and photocopy of bill bearing No.1886 dated 11.08.2014 amounting to Rs.40,112/- as Annexure C1, photocopy of bills as Annexure C-2 to C-5, Information Sought under R.T.I Act from the UHBVN as Annexure C-6 & C-7, photocopy of sale deed as Annexure C-8 and closed her evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Vishal Saini, SDO (OP), UHBVN Ltd. as Annexure RW/A, Photo copy of checking report as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of notice for defaulting amount written to Nirmal Singh as Annexure R-2 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.                     It is not disputed that complainant is using the electricity connection bearing Account No.Y35-JB/112436P installed in her premises and paying the bills regularly. The only grievances of the complainant is that the defaulting amount of Rs.27144/- has been illegally and wrongly added as sundry charges in the account of  the complainant vide bill No.1899 dated 11.08.2013 (Annexure C-3) whereas the OPs Nigam has no right to charge the same from the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that even OPs Nigam has not disclosed in their reply that the alleged amount of Rs.27144/- was related to which period. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that no prior notice was issued by the OPs Nigam to the complainant and without giving any opportunity of personal hearing the alleged defaulting amount of Rs.27144/- of Nirmal Singh has been wrongly added in the impugned bill and lastly prayed for quashing the same.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued that the defaulting amount of Rs.27144/- of the account No.JB11/611 which was in the name of one Nirmal Singh has been rightly added in the bill of the complainant being same premises and the complainant is liable to pay the same. Hence, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and requested for dismissal of the complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs Nigam as they have wrongly and illegally added the defaulted amount of Nirmal Singh of Karnail Colony in the bill of the complainant and no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the complainant. Further, the OPs have also failed to disclose the period for which the alleged amount was related. Even, the OPs have also not placed on file the account statement or any cogent evidence from which, this Forum can consider that the alleged amount Rs.27144/- was pending against said Manjinder Kaur. Further, the OPs have also failed to prove that complainant Manjinder Kaur has ever used the electricity through the account of said Nirmal Singh bearing No.JB11/611 whereas from the perusal of checking report (Annexure R-1), it is evident that the amount of Rs. 27144/- is standing in the name of Nirmal Singh, R/o  Karnail Colony, on account of PDCO but the Ops have wrongly added the said amount in the account of complainant. Even the OPs have also not placed on file any documents showing that whether any recovery notice or any steps were taken to recover alleged amount of Rs.27144/- from that person Nirmal Singh. We have perused the electricity bill (Annexure C-3) dated 11.08.2013 and other bills for January, June 2013 and June 2012, (Annexure C4  & C5). But in these bills no such amount has been added by the OPs Nigam.

10.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs not to charge the alleged defaulted amount of Rs.27144/- alongwith surcharge, if any, from the complainant and overhaul the account of the complainant and issue fresh bill.  If any, amount has been deposited out of the alleged amount, the same be refunded to the complainant within a period of 30 days. 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 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: 01.12.2016.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                          DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER