Haryana

Karnal

304/2010

Mahinder Singh S/o Keser Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO Uttar Haryana Bijle Vitran Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rohit Sharma

16 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No.304 of 2010

                                                               Date of instt.: 28.04.2010

                                                          Date of decision:17 .3.2016

 

 Mahinder Singh son of late Sh.Kesar Singh resident of village Dera Churni tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

S.D.O. “OP” Sub Division, Newal, Uttri Haryana Bojli Vitran Nigam Limited, Newal District Karnal..

                                                                         ………… Opposite Party.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before           Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-        Sh.Rohit Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.G.S.Arora Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

ORDER:

                        The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that  he was consumer of the  Opposite Party having electricity connection bearing account No. LN-13/2771-K  and paying  electricity  consumption charges regularly.  In the year 2003, the electricity meter installed in his premises had  burnt and he gave intimation thereof to the Opposite Party. The official of the Opposite Party checked his premises and took away the burnt meter, assuring that the meter would be reinstalled as early as possible, but the meter was never installed. His electricity supply was disconnected   on that very day. The said meter/electricity connection bearing account No. LN-13/2771-K  was installed in the premises of one Shiv Dayal son of Chander Singh resident of village Churni and remained in his name upto 24.2.2006. Shiv Dayal deposited all the electricity charges with the Opposite Party. Lateron, the said connection was disconnected from the house of Shiv Dayal and thereafter whereabouts of the same were not known. However, the Opposite Party  sent electricity bills in his name in February  and June 2008  illegally and unlawfully despite the fact that there was no electricity  connection in his house. He contacted the officials of the Opposite Party, who told that there was no need to deposit the aforesaid bills as there was no meter/connection in his house.

                       It has further been pleaded that Gurcharan Singh, the  brother of the complainant applied for new tubewell  private connection and  deposited  an amount of Rs.10,000/- vide receipt  No. 04447735 dated 10.4.2008, but after some   days when he approached the Opposite Party he was told that the amount  was  adjusted in the account of Mahinder Singh complainant i.e. in the account no. LN-13/2771-K.  Neither new transformer of Gurcharan Singh was installed nor the amount was refunded

                    It has further been alleged that the tubewell connection bearing account no. AF-32/1150-F  was in the name of Kesar  Singh, the father of the complainant. Monthly charges of the said tubewell connection were Rs.262.50. However, in the month of February, 2010, a bill of Rs.2491/- was sent  by the Opposite Party, which was not paid. Thereafter, a bill  in the name of Kesar Singh in the month of April 2010, was sent by the Opposite Party for an amount of Rs.50432/- . When he approached the officials of the Opposite Party, he was told that they had adjusted the electricity charges of bill bearing account No.LN-13/2771-K in the said bill and threatened to disconnect the electricity supply of the tubwell, if the amount was not deposited. In this way, there was deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Party, which caused him mental pain and harassment apart from financial loss.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Party, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has got no loucs standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint  in view of Section 145 of the Indian Electricity Act  and that the  complaint is an abuse of the process of law.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that electricity supply of the premises of the complainant continued till the date of Permanent Disconnection Order (hereinafter referred to as the PDCO).The connection was running in the house of the complainant and the same was never issued to Shiv Dayal. The bills were always sent to the complainant  but in order to avoid payment of the bills, he has filed the present  false complaint.   On 30.8.2009 an amount of Rs.46940/- was outstanding against the complainant, therefore, his connection was disconnected vide PDCO No.2663 dated 20.8.2009.It has further been averred that the amount of Rs.10000/- deposited by Gurcharan Singh was adjusted in the account no. LN-13/2771-K as per request of Gurcharan Singh .It has further  been alleged that  defaulting amount  of Rs.56674/- of account No. LN-13-2771-K was transferred to account No.AP-32/1150-F as the same  belonged to the father of the complainant who had expired and the complainant being legal heir had been using the said connection. Therefore, the Opposite Party was legally entitled to recover that amount from the tubwell connection existing in the name of his father. The Opposite Party had adopted due and legal procedure for the recovery of the public money and there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Party.  The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 have been tendered.

 

4.                 On the other hand,  in evidence of the Opposite Party affidavit of Gagan Pandey

Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O4 have been tendered.

 

5.                 We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

6.                 As per the allegations of the complainant he had electricity connection bearing account No.LN-13/2771-K in his premises and meter of the same burnt in the year 2003 and  the same was taken away by the officials of the Opposite Party for replacement, but never replaced. The same electricity connection was issued to Shiv Dayal who regularly paid bills. However, in the months of February and June 2008, the bills were sent  to the complainant illegally. It has further been alleged that Gurcharan  Singh, the  brother of the complainant had deposited amount of Rs.10,000/- for new tubewell connection but instead of releasing his connection for tubewell, the amount was adjusted in the account of the complainant. Lateron, a bill of Rs.2491 was  sent in the name of father of the complainant in respect of the tubwell connection bearing account NO. AP-32-1150-F illegally. It has also been alleged that after 2003 there was no electricity supply to the house of the complainant, but the  bill in respect of that connection was illegally transferred  by the Opposite Party in the account of the  tubewell connection  in the name of his father.

 

7.                 The Opposite Party admitted that Gurcharan Singh, the Singh brother of the complainant had deposited Rs.10000/-   on 10.4.2008, but it has been submitted that on his representation the amount was adjusted in the tubwell account bearing No. AP-32-1150 in the name of his father Kesar Singh. Copy of the entry No.19 dated 15..2.2010 Ex.O2 has been produced  on record. Moreover, Gurcharan Singh  has not come forward to claim that the  this amount deposited by him  was illegally adjusted in the account of tubewell connection in the name of his father. The Opposite Party has also produced the copy of the ledger relating to the  connection having account No.AP-32-1150-F as well as copy of the ledger relating to the connection bearing account No. LN-13-2771-K in the name of complainant as Ex.O4.The ledger shows that complainant was sent bills on average basis after January 2004 till July2005. The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence which may show that his meter had burnt in 2003. Even the date and month when the meter had burnt, has neither been mentioned  in the complaint nor in the affidavit of the complainant. The ledger shows that upto January 2004,  the meter reading was recorded. Thereafter no consumption reading was recorded upto July 2005. If, the meter of the complainant was found burnt and the electricity supply was disconnected, the complainant could not have remained silent for such a long period. At least he could ask for installation of new meter and restoration of the electricity supply or for PDCO of his electricity connection, but neither it has been alleged nor there is any evidence of  the complaint that any such step was ever taken by him. Therefore, in the absence of any material evidence, it cannot be accepted that electricity supply of the complainant was disconnected after burning of the meter.

 

8.                 During the  course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party  submitted that  due to inadvertence the same account number i.e. LN-13-2771-K was mentioned in the record in the name of Shiv Dayal, therefore, on the bill relating to the said account, name of Shiv Dayal was mentioned instead of complainant, but the complainant had paid those bills regarding the consumption  of electricity in his  premises.   When it came to the notice of the Opposite Party that no bill regarding electricity consumption by Shiv Dayal was ever issued, the record  was corrected and account number LN-13-2787-K was  corrected  in respect of his connection instead of connection No..LN-13-2771-K which was originally allotted to him. In this regard, he has also produced the copies of the relevant record of the ledger as well as the consumption recorded.  In view of the fact that the complainant never got his connection disconnected and his plea that  his electricity connection was given to Shiv Dayal cannot be accepted and under the facts and circumstances of the case and the record produced by the Opposite Party, the submission of the Opposite Party that account number of the connection of the complainant was wrongly allotted to the connection  released to Shiv Dayal, but lateron  when the meter was checked the record was corrected, cannot be discarded.

 

9.                 Admittedly, the tubewell   electricity connection bearing account number  AP-32-1150  relating to the tubwell was  in the name of father of the complainant, who had expired and the complainant being the legal heir continued to use the said tubewell connection. Therefore, the defaulted amount of his connection No.LN-13-2771K could legally be transferred to the account of the tubwell bearing account no.AP-32-1150. Therefore, no illegality can be found  in raising demand by the Opposite Party for the defaulting amount relating to the electricity connection bearing account No. LN-13-2771K of the complainant from the complainant by transferring the same to the tubewell connection  account no. AP-32-1150-F.

 

10.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:17.03.2016.

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

Present:-        Sh.Rohit Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.G.S.Arora Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

                   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:17.03.2016.

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.