BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No.792 of 2011
Date of instt. 15.11.2011
Date of decision:04.02.2015.
Richpal alias Rishipal son of Shri Phool Singh resident of village Moonak tehsil and district Karnal.
……..Complainant.
Vs.
SDO, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, village Moonak Tehsil and district Karnal. l …..Opposite Party.
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.
Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.
Present:- Sh.S.S.Moonak Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Sanjeev Kamboj Advocate for the OP.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that the complainant is the consumer qua the OP vide domestic connection bearing account NO. UM-14/4424-M on the allegations that in the month of September, 2011 the OP issued one electricity bill bearing No. 00881 dated 27.9.2011 for an amountofnRs.35,581/- in which demand of Rs.33292/- has been raised which was illegal and unconstitutional. The complainant approached to the OP for correction of the bill which in vain which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP alleging deficiency on the part of the op and has prayed that the OP be directed to withdraw the said illegal demand and to pay compensation for the harassment caused to him alongwith the litigation expenses. He has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint.
On notice the OP appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the present complaint was not maintainable; that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint ; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands; that the this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and to try the present complaint and that the present complaint was an abuse of the process of law.
On merits, it was contended that in the premises of the compliant one another connection bearing account No.UM-14/1885 was running which was running in the same premises in the name of Phool Singh son of Ratti Ram which was made PDCO due to nonpayment of the amount of Rs.13618/- and due to this reason the above said amount has been transferred in the present account of the complainant. Thus, it was contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
4. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP on the allegations that he was having domestic electricity connection bearing account No. UM-14/4424-M in his house. However, in the month of September, 2011, the OP issued the bill No. 0881 dated 27.9.2011 in the sum of Rs.35,581/- in which a sum of Rs.33,292/- has been shown as arrear in an illegal manner. The complainant approached the OP to rectify the said bill but in vain.
5. However, as per contention of the OP, it emerges that the complainant is defaulter of the OP and has not been paying the electricity charges since 1/2010 as shown in the statement of the account pertaining to the account of the complainant. The OP has also contended that on 18.9.2010 the premises of the complainant were checked and it was found that the complainant was having another connection bearing account No. UM-14/1885 which was in the name of Phool Singh son of Sh.Rati Ram and the said connection was made PDCO on account of nonpayment of Rs.13618/- and the said amount was transferred in the account of the complainant and the memo No.4999 dated 20.9.2010 Ex.O1 was also sent to the complainant but the complainant has failed to deposit the same and now the said amount has increased to Rs.40375/- as shown in the ledged account Ex.O4 of the complainant. Therefore, the disputed amount in the sum of Rs.32292/- has also been shown in the bill Ex.C2 of the complainant on account of previous electricity charges in the sum of Rs.13618/- pertaining to the account No.UM-14-1885 which was in the name of Phool Singh father of the complainant and the complainant was asked to deposit the said amount vide Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and the same has been shown in the ledger account Ex.O4. Therefore, the OP has duly exercised incorporation of the said amount in the ledger account but the complainant has not bothered even to deposit the current consumption charges of the energy. Therefore, the complainant has mis exercised the process of court and as such we hold that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP rather the complainant himself is at fault in not depositing the legal electricity dues and as such we dismiss the present complaint. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated: 04.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Smt.Shashi Sharma)
Member.
Present:- Sh.S.S.Moonak Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Sanjeev Kamboj Advocate for the OP.
Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated: 04.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Smt.Shashi Sharma)
Member.
