BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.215/13.

Date of instt.: 30.09.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: .2015.

Ashok Kumar son of Sh. Sunder Lal, r/o House No.765, HUDA, Sector-19, Part-II, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Sub Divisional Officer (OP) Sub Division No.1, Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.

2. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula, through its Secretary. 

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Anil Chutani, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection No.N-39 and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that the sanctioned load of the electricity connection installed at the premises of complainant is 14.820 K.W. and the complainant approached the officials of Ops for enhancing the sanctioned load from 14.820 K.W. to 49 K.W. where the officials of Ops asked the complainant to deposit the security amount of Rs.60,480/-.  It is further alleged that following the directions, the complainant submitted all the requisite documents sought by the officials of Ops and also deposited the security amount of Rs.60,480/- vide receipt No.340 dt. 30.09.2011.  It is further alleged that the officials of Ops intimated the complainant regarding enhancing of sanctioned load from 14.820 K.W. to 49 K.W. and started to send the bills on the basis of enhanced sanctioned load.  It is further alleged that as no functional changes in the shape of installing the new electricity meter, wires, box and affixing C.T’s etc. have been done by the officials of Ops till date, so, the complainant approached the office of Ops from where it got revealed that the sanctioned load of electricity connection installed at the premises of complainant is still 14.820 K.W. upon which the complainant requested the Ops to refund the enhanced amount charged from him.  It is further alleged that the Ops started to charge the electricity bills on the basis of previous sanctioned load i.e. 14.820 K.W. and the complainant duly used to pay the bills sent by the Ops.  It is further alleged that in the month of May, 2013, the Ops again sent a bill by depicting the sanctioned load of electricity connection as 49 K.W.  and the complainant approached the Ops and sought clarification against the wrong and illegal bill.  It is further alleged that the officials of Ops despite of correcting the wrong bill rather send a demand notice dt. 17.05.2013 to the complainant calling a sum of Rs.90,050/- by claiming the same to be as short assessment.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant is using the electricity for commercial purposes for running hotel in the name and style of Mannat Hotel; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, it is stated that the sanctioned laod of complainant had been enhanced to 49 K.W. after completing all the formalities by the Ops as required in case enhancement of sanctioned load.  In fact, the complainant had paid the charges as applicable in case of enhanced sanctioned load of 49 K.W. from 10/11 to 01/12 as per the manual ledger.  In 01/12 manual ledger was closed.  But due to inadvertent clerical mistake, when the new ledger was started, the complainant was charged as per his old sanctioned load i.e. 14.820 K.W. for the period from 2/2012 to 4/2013, whereas he was liable to pay for 49 K.W., when it came into the notice of Ops, they charged the bills according to enhanced sanctioned load of 49 K.W. by overhauling the account of complainant.  The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties led their evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt. .2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.215/13.

Date of instt.: 30.09.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: .2015.

Ashok Kumar son of Sh. Sunder Lal, r/o House No.765, HUDA, Sector-19, Part-II, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Sub Divisional Officer (OP) Sub Division No.1, Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.

2. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula, through its Secretary. 

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Anil Chutani, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection No.N-39 and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that the sanctioned load of the electricity connection installed at the premises of complainant is 14.820 K.W. and the complainant approached the officials of Ops for enhancing the sanctioned load from 14.820 K.W. to 49 K.W. where the officials of Ops asked the complainant to deposit the security amount of Rs.60,480/-.  It is further alleged that following the directions, the complainant submitted all the requisite documents sought by the officials of Ops and also deposited the security amount of Rs.60,480/- vide receipt No.340 dt. 30.09.2011.  It is further alleged that the officials of Ops intimated the complainant regarding enhancing of sanctioned load from 14.820 K.W. to 49 K.W. and started to send the bills on the basis of enhanced sanctioned load.  It is further alleged that as no functional changes in the shape of installing the new electricity meter, wires, box and affixing C.T’s etc. have been done by the officials of Ops till date, so, the complainant approached the office of Ops from where it got revealed that the sanctioned load of electricity connection installed at the premises of complainant is still 14.820 K.W. upon which the complainant requested the Ops to refund the enhanced amount charged from him.  It is further alleged that the Ops started to charge the electricity bills on the basis of previous sanctioned load i.e. 14.820 K.W. and the complainant duly used to pay the bills sent by the Ops.  It is further alleged that in the month of May, 2013, the Ops again sent a bill by depicting the sanctioned load of electricity connection as 49 K.W.  and the complainant approached the Ops and sought clarification against the wrong and illegal bill.  It is further alleged that the officials of Ops despite of correcting the wrong bill rather send a demand notice dt. 17.05.2013 to the complainant calling a sum of Rs.90,050/- by claiming the same to be as short assessment.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant is using the electricity for commercial purposes for running hotel in the name and style of Mannat Hotel; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, it is stated that the sanctioned laod of complainant had been enhanced to 49 K.W. after completing all the formalities by the Ops as required in case enhancement of sanctioned load.  In fact, the complainant had paid the charges as applicable in case of enhanced sanctioned load of 49 K.W. from 10/11 to 01/12 as per the manual ledger.  In 01/12 manual ledger was closed.  But due to inadvertent clerical mistake, when the new ledger was started, the complainant was charged as per his old sanctioned load i.e. 14.820 K.W. for the period from 2/2012 to 4/2013, whereas he was liable to pay for 49 K.W., when it came into the notice of Ops, they charged the bills according to enhanced sanctioned load of 49 K.W. by overhauling the account of complainant.  The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties led their evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt. .2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.