BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.264/13.

Date of instt.: 02.12.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 11.05.2015.

Baldev Singh S/o Bahadur Singh r/o Vill. Rasulpur Mandi, Sub Tehsil Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

UHBVN Ltd. through its S.D.O. Op. S/Divn. Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Party.

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

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Rajish Vadhera, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. R.S.Dhull, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Op vide electricity connection No.KS12/4352 and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that on 24.07.2013, the Op has issued a letter No.3629 dt. 24.07.2013 to the complainant in which an amount of Rs.4,29,941/- has been imposed illegally on the ground that the land which was alleged to be purchased by the complainant from one Raj Kumar of Village Siwan was having electric connection No.KS-12/4352 and the amount of Rs.4,29,941/- was the outstanding balance of that connection.  It is further alleged that now the Op has issued the bill dt. 25.09.2013 in which an amount of Rs.4,29,941/- has been imposed as the sundry charges illegally on the complainant regarding some previous connection No.KS12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar.  It is further alleged that the imposition of Rs.4,29,941/- is wrong and illegal.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that on 23.07.2013 the premises of Sh. Raj Kumar r/o Siwan bearing PDCO electricity connection No.KS12-2010 was checked by Sh. Kuldeep Singh, J.E. along with staff.  On checking, the another connection bearing account No.KS-12/4352 in the name of complainant was also found installed at the same site.  As per statement of neighbour of complainant, the site/agriculture land was purchased by the complainant.  So, a letter bearing memo No.3629 dt. 24.07.2013 was served upon the complainant and informed that the PDCO electricity connection No.KS-12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar r/o Siwan was disconnected permanently due to non-payment of defaulting amount of Rs.4,29,941/-.  So, the Op has legally and rightly served upon the notice dt. 24.07.2013 upon the complainant.  As the complainant did not deposit the above-said defaulting amount, so, this defaulting amount was charged in the bill of month of 9/2013.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their 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.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is consumer of Op vide electricity connection No.KS12/4352 and has been paying the bills regularly.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that the Op has issued a letter No.3629 dt. 24.07.2013 to the complainant in which an amount of Rs.4,29,941/- has been imposed illegally on the ground that the land which was alleged to be purchased by the complainant from one Raj Kumar of Village Siwan was having electric connection No.KS-12/4352 and the amount of Rs.4,29,941/- was the outstanding balance of that connection.  Ld. Counsel for the Op contends that the electricity connection No.KS-12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar r/o Siwan was disconnected permanently due to non-payment of defaulting amount of Rs.4,29,941/-.  He further contends that as the complainant purchased the said land where the above-said PDCO connection was installed, so, he was asked to deposit the above-said defaulting amount.  To rebut the contention of ld. Counsel for the Op, ld. Counsel for the complainant vehemently contends that the land in which the said connection was installed was sold by Madan Lal not by Raj Kumar and the same was purchased by Smt. Gurdeep Kaur wife of complainant.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant also placed a copy of sale deed (Ex.CD) on case file.  So, in view of said sale deed, the plea of Op is not tenable in the eyes of law.  So, we are of the considered view that the Op has wrongly imposed the defaulting amount of Rs.4,29,941/- regarding connection No.KS-12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar r/o Siwan in the connection No.KS-12/4352.  Hence, the Op is deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op to waive off the amount of Rs.4,29,941/- from the account No.KS-12/4352 of the complainant.  No order as to cost.  However, the Op is at liberty to recover the said amount from Raj Kumar r/o Siwan.  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.11.05.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.264/13.

Date of instt.: 02.12.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 11.05.2015.

Baldev Singh S/o Bahadur Singh r/o Vill. Rasulpur Mandi, Sub Tehsil Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

UHBVN Ltd. through its S.D.O. Op. S/Divn. Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Party.

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

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Rajish Vadhera, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. R.S.Dhull, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Op vide electricity connection No.KS12/4352 and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that on 24.07.2013, the Op has issued a letter No.3629 dt. 24.07.2013 to the complainant in which an amount of Rs.4,29,941/- has been imposed illegally on the ground that the land which was alleged to be purchased by the complainant from one Raj Kumar of Village Siwan was having electric connection No.KS-12/4352 and the amount of Rs.4,29,941/- was the outstanding balance of that connection.  It is further alleged that now the Op has issued the bill dt. 25.09.2013 in which an amount of Rs.4,29,941/- has been imposed as the sundry charges illegally on the complainant regarding some previous connection No.KS12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar.  It is further alleged that the imposition of Rs.4,29,941/- is wrong and illegal.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that on 23.07.2013 the premises of Sh. Raj Kumar r/o Siwan bearing PDCO electricity connection No.KS12-2010 was checked by Sh. Kuldeep Singh, J.E. along with staff.  On checking, the another connection bearing account No.KS-12/4352 in the name of complainant was also found installed at the same site.  As per statement of neighbour of complainant, the site/agriculture land was purchased by the complainant.  So, a letter bearing memo No.3629 dt. 24.07.2013 was served upon the complainant and informed that the PDCO electricity connection No.KS-12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar r/o Siwan was disconnected permanently due to non-payment of defaulting amount of Rs.4,29,941/-.  So, the Op has legally and rightly served upon the notice dt. 24.07.2013 upon the complainant.  As the complainant did not deposit the above-said defaulting amount, so, this defaulting amount was charged in the bill of month of 9/2013.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their 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.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is consumer of Op vide electricity connection No.KS12/4352 and has been paying the bills regularly.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that the Op has issued a letter No.3629 dt. 24.07.2013 to the complainant in which an amount of Rs.4,29,941/- has been imposed illegally on the ground that the land which was alleged to be purchased by the complainant from one Raj Kumar of Village Siwan was having electric connection No.KS-12/4352 and the amount of Rs.4,29,941/- was the outstanding balance of that connection.  Ld. Counsel for the Op contends that the electricity connection No.KS-12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar r/o Siwan was disconnected permanently due to non-payment of defaulting amount of Rs.4,29,941/-.  He further contends that as the complainant purchased the said land where the above-said PDCO connection was installed, so, he was asked to deposit the above-said defaulting amount.  To rebut the contention of ld. Counsel for the Op, ld. Counsel for the complainant vehemently contends that the land in which the said connection was installed was sold by Madan Lal not by Raj Kumar and the same was purchased by Smt. Gurdeep Kaur wife of complainant.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant also placed a copy of sale deed (Ex.CD) on case file.  So, in view of said sale deed, the plea of Op is not tenable in the eyes of law.  So, we are of the considered view that the Op has wrongly imposed the defaulting amount of Rs.4,29,941/- regarding connection No.KS-12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar r/o Siwan in the connection No.KS-12/4352.  Hence, the Op is deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op to waive off the amount of Rs.4,29,941/- from the account No.KS-12/4352 of the complainant.  No order as to cost.  However, the Op is at liberty to recover the said amount from Raj Kumar r/o Siwan.  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.11.05.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.264/13.

Date of instt.: 02.12.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 11.05.2015.

Baldev Singh S/o Bahadur Singh r/o Vill. Rasulpur Mandi, Sub Tehsil Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

UHBVN Ltd. through its S.D.O. Op. S/Divn. Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Party.

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

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Rajish Vadhera, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. R.S.Dhull, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Op vide electricity connection No.KS12/4352 and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that on 24.07.2013, the Op has issued a letter No.3629 dt. 24.07.2013 to the complainant in which an amount of Rs.4,29,941/- has been imposed illegally on the ground that the land which was alleged to be purchased by the complainant from one Raj Kumar of Village Siwan was having electric connection No.KS-12/4352 and the amount of Rs.4,29,941/- was the outstanding balance of that connection.  It is further alleged that now the Op has issued the bill dt. 25.09.2013 in which an amount of Rs.4,29,941/- has been imposed as the sundry charges illegally on the complainant regarding some previous connection No.KS12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar.  It is further alleged that the imposition of Rs.4,29,941/- is wrong and illegal.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that on 23.07.2013 the premises of Sh. Raj Kumar r/o Siwan bearing PDCO electricity connection No.KS12-2010 was checked by Sh. Kuldeep Singh, J.E. along with staff.  On checking, the another connection bearing account No.KS-12/4352 in the name of complainant was also found installed at the same site.  As per statement of neighbour of complainant, the site/agriculture land was purchased by the complainant.  So, a letter bearing memo No.3629 dt. 24.07.2013 was served upon the complainant and informed that the PDCO electricity connection No.KS-12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar r/o Siwan was disconnected permanently due to non-payment of defaulting amount of Rs.4,29,941/-.  So, the Op has legally and rightly served upon the notice dt. 24.07.2013 upon the complainant.  As the complainant did not deposit the above-said defaulting amount, so, this defaulting amount was charged in the bill of month of 9/2013.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their 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.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is consumer of Op vide electricity connection No.KS12/4352 and has been paying the bills regularly.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that the Op has issued a letter No.3629 dt. 24.07.2013 to the complainant in which an amount of Rs.4,29,941/- has been imposed illegally on the ground that the land which was alleged to be purchased by the complainant from one Raj Kumar of Village Siwan was having electric connection No.KS-12/4352 and the amount of Rs.4,29,941/- was the outstanding balance of that connection.  Ld. Counsel for the Op contends that the electricity connection No.KS-12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar r/o Siwan was disconnected permanently due to non-payment of defaulting amount of Rs.4,29,941/-.  He further contends that as the complainant purchased the said land where the above-said PDCO connection was installed, so, he was asked to deposit the above-said defaulting amount.  To rebut the contention of ld. Counsel for the Op, ld. Counsel for the complainant vehemently contends that the land in which the said connection was installed was sold by Madan Lal not by Raj Kumar and the same was purchased by Smt. Gurdeep Kaur wife of complainant.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant also placed a copy of sale deed (Ex.CD) on case file.  So, in view of said sale deed, the plea of Op is not tenable in the eyes of law.  So, we are of the considered view that the Op has wrongly imposed the defaulting amount of Rs.4,29,941/- regarding connection No.KS-12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar r/o Siwan in the connection No.KS-12/4352.  Hence, the Op is deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op to waive off the amount of Rs.4,29,941/- from the account No.KS-12/4352 of the complainant.  No order as to cost.  However, the Op is at liberty to recover the said amount from Raj Kumar r/o Siwan.  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.11.05.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.264/13.

Date of instt.: 02.12.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 11.05.2015.

Baldev Singh S/o Bahadur Singh r/o Vill. Rasulpur Mandi, Sub Tehsil Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

UHBVN Ltd. through its S.D.O. Op. S/Divn. Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Party.

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

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Rajish Vadhera, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. R.S.Dhull, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Op vide electricity connection No.KS12/4352 and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that on 24.07.2013, the Op has issued a letter No.3629 dt. 24.07.2013 to the complainant in which an amount of Rs.4,29,941/- has been imposed illegally on the ground that the land which was alleged to be purchased by the complainant from one Raj Kumar of Village Siwan was having electric connection No.KS-12/4352 and the amount of Rs.4,29,941/- was the outstanding balance of that connection.  It is further alleged that now the Op has issued the bill dt. 25.09.2013 in which an amount of Rs.4,29,941/- has been imposed as the sundry charges illegally on the complainant regarding some previous connection No.KS12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar.  It is further alleged that the imposition of Rs.4,29,941/- is wrong and illegal.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that on 23.07.2013 the premises of Sh. Raj Kumar r/o Siwan bearing PDCO electricity connection No.KS12-2010 was checked by Sh. Kuldeep Singh, J.E. along with staff.  On checking, the another connection bearing account No.KS-12/4352 in the name of complainant was also found installed at the same site.  As per statement of neighbour of complainant, the site/agriculture land was purchased by the complainant.  So, a letter bearing memo No.3629 dt. 24.07.2013 was served upon the complainant and informed that the PDCO electricity connection No.KS-12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar r/o Siwan was disconnected permanently due to non-payment of defaulting amount of Rs.4,29,941/-.  So, the Op has legally and rightly served upon the notice dt. 24.07.2013 upon the complainant.  As the complainant did not deposit the above-said defaulting amount, so, this defaulting amount was charged in the bill of month of 9/2013.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their 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.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is consumer of Op vide electricity connection No.KS12/4352 and has been paying the bills regularly.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that the Op has issued a letter No.3629 dt. 24.07.2013 to the complainant in which an amount of Rs.4,29,941/- has been imposed illegally on the ground that the land which was alleged to be purchased by the complainant from one Raj Kumar of Village Siwan was having electric connection No.KS-12/4352 and the amount of Rs.4,29,941/- was the outstanding balance of that connection.  Ld. Counsel for the Op contends that the electricity connection No.KS-12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar r/o Siwan was disconnected permanently due to non-payment of defaulting amount of Rs.4,29,941/-.  He further contends that as the complainant purchased the said land where the above-said PDCO connection was installed, so, he was asked to deposit the above-said defaulting amount.  To rebut the contention of ld. Counsel for the Op, ld. Counsel for the complainant vehemently contends that the land in which the said connection was installed was sold by Madan Lal not by Raj Kumar and the same was purchased by Smt. Gurdeep Kaur wife of complainant.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant also placed a copy of sale deed (Ex.CD) on case file.  So, in view of said sale deed, the plea of Op is not tenable in the eyes of law.  So, we are of the considered view that the Op has wrongly imposed the defaulting amount of Rs.4,29,941/- regarding connection No.KS-12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar r/o Siwan in the connection No.KS-12/4352.  Hence, the Op is deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op to waive off the amount of Rs.4,29,941/- from the account No.KS-12/4352 of the complainant.  No order as to cost.  However, the Op is at liberty to recover the said amount from Raj Kumar r/o Siwan.  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.11.05.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.264/13.

Date of instt.: 02.12.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 11.05.2015.

Baldev Singh S/o Bahadur Singh r/o Vill. Rasulpur Mandi, Sub Tehsil Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

UHBVN Ltd. through its S.D.O. Op. S/Divn. Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Party.

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

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Rajish Vadhera, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. R.S.Dhull, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Op vide electricity connection No.KS12/4352 and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that on 24.07.2013, the Op has issued a letter No.3629 dt. 24.07.2013 to the complainant in which an amount of Rs.4,29,941/- has been imposed illegally on the ground that the land which was alleged to be purchased by the complainant from one Raj Kumar of Village Siwan was having electric connection No.KS-12/4352 and the amount of Rs.4,29,941/- was the outstanding balance of that connection.  It is further alleged that now the Op has issued the bill dt. 25.09.2013 in which an amount of Rs.4,29,941/- has been imposed as the sundry charges illegally on the complainant regarding some previous connection No.KS12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar.  It is further alleged that the imposition of Rs.4,29,941/- is wrong and illegal.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that on 23.07.2013 the premises of Sh. Raj Kumar r/o Siwan bearing PDCO electricity connection No.KS12-2010 was checked by Sh. Kuldeep Singh, J.E. along with staff.  On checking, the another connection bearing account No.KS-12/4352 in the name of complainant was also found installed at the same site.  As per statement of neighbour of complainant, the site/agriculture land was purchased by the complainant.  So, a letter bearing memo No.3629 dt. 24.07.2013 was served upon the complainant and informed that the PDCO electricity connection No.KS-12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar r/o Siwan was disconnected permanently due to non-payment of defaulting amount of Rs.4,29,941/-.  So, the Op has legally and rightly served upon the notice dt. 24.07.2013 upon the complainant.  As the complainant did not deposit the above-said defaulting amount, so, this defaulting amount was charged in the bill of month of 9/2013.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their 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.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is consumer of Op vide electricity connection No.KS12/4352 and has been paying the bills regularly.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that the Op has issued a letter No.3629 dt. 24.07.2013 to the complainant in which an amount of Rs.4,29,941/- has been imposed illegally on the ground that the land which was alleged to be purchased by the complainant from one Raj Kumar of Village Siwan was having electric connection No.KS-12/4352 and the amount of Rs.4,29,941/- was the outstanding balance of that connection.  Ld. Counsel for the Op contends that the electricity connection No.KS-12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar r/o Siwan was disconnected permanently due to non-payment of defaulting amount of Rs.4,29,941/-.  He further contends that as the complainant purchased the said land where the above-said PDCO connection was installed, so, he was asked to deposit the above-said defaulting amount.  To rebut the contention of ld. Counsel for the Op, ld. Counsel for the complainant vehemently contends that the land in which the said connection was installed was sold by Madan Lal not by Raj Kumar and the same was purchased by Smt. Gurdeep Kaur wife of complainant.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant also placed a copy of sale deed (Ex.CD) on case file.  So, in view of said sale deed, the plea of Op is not tenable in the eyes of law.  So, we are of the considered view that the Op has wrongly imposed the defaulting amount of Rs.4,29,941/- regarding connection No.KS-12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar r/o Siwan in the connection No.KS-12/4352.  Hence, the Op is deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op to waive off the amount of Rs.4,29,941/- from the account No.KS-12/4352 of the complainant.  No order as to cost.  However, the Op is at liberty to recover the said amount from Raj Kumar r/o Siwan.  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.11.05.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.264/13.

Date of instt.: 02.12.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 11.05.2015.

Baldev Singh S/o Bahadur Singh r/o Vill. Rasulpur Mandi, Sub Tehsil Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

UHBVN Ltd. through its S.D.O. Op. S/Divn. Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Party.

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

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Rajish Vadhera, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. R.S.Dhull, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Op vide electricity connection No.KS12/4352 and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that on 24.07.2013, the Op has issued a letter No.3629 dt. 24.07.2013 to the complainant in which an amount of Rs.4,29,941/- has been imposed illegally on the ground that the land which was alleged to be purchased by the complainant from one Raj Kumar of Village Siwan was having electric connection No.KS-12/4352 and the amount of Rs.4,29,941/- was the outstanding balance of that connection.  It is further alleged that now the Op has issued the bill dt. 25.09.2013 in which an amount of Rs.4,29,941/- has been imposed as the sundry charges illegally on the complainant regarding some previous connection No.KS12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar.  It is further alleged that the imposition of Rs.4,29,941/- is wrong and illegal.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that on 23.07.2013 the premises of Sh. Raj Kumar r/o Siwan bearing PDCO electricity connection No.KS12-2010 was checked by Sh. Kuldeep Singh, J.E. along with staff.  On checking, the another connection bearing account No.KS-12/4352 in the name of complainant was also found installed at the same site.  As per statement of neighbour of complainant, the site/agriculture land was purchased by the complainant.  So, a letter bearing memo No.3629 dt. 24.07.2013 was served upon the complainant and informed that the PDCO electricity connection No.KS-12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar r/o Siwan was disconnected permanently due to non-payment of defaulting amount of Rs.4,29,941/-.  So, the Op has legally and rightly served upon the notice dt. 24.07.2013 upon the complainant.  As the complainant did not deposit the above-said defaulting amount, so, this defaulting amount was charged in the bill of month of 9/2013.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their 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.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is consumer of Op vide electricity connection No.KS12/4352 and has been paying the bills regularly.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that the Op has issued a letter No.3629 dt. 24.07.2013 to the complainant in which an amount of Rs.4,29,941/- has been imposed illegally on the ground that the land which was alleged to be purchased by the complainant from one Raj Kumar of Village Siwan was having electric connection No.KS-12/4352 and the amount of Rs.4,29,941/- was the outstanding balance of that connection.  Ld. Counsel for the Op contends that the electricity connection No.KS-12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar r/o Siwan was disconnected permanently due to non-payment of defaulting amount of Rs.4,29,941/-.  He further contends that as the complainant purchased the said land where the above-said PDCO connection was installed, so, he was asked to deposit the above-said defaulting amount.  To rebut the contention of ld. Counsel for the Op, ld. Counsel for the complainant vehemently contends that the land in which the said connection was installed was sold by Madan Lal not by Raj Kumar and the same was purchased by Smt. Gurdeep Kaur wife of complainant.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant also placed a copy of sale deed (Ex.CD) on case file.  So, in view of said sale deed, the plea of Op is not tenable in the eyes of law.  So, we are of the considered view that the Op has wrongly imposed the defaulting amount of Rs.4,29,941/- regarding connection No.KS-12/2010 which was in the name of Raj Kumar r/o Siwan in the connection No.KS-12/4352.  Hence, the Op is deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op to waive off the amount of Rs.4,29,941/- from the account No.KS-12/4352 of the complainant.  No order as to cost.  However, the Op is at liberty to recover the said amount from Raj Kumar r/o Siwan.  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.11.05.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.