BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.229/13.

Date of instt.: 21.10.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 16.01.2015.

Parvati aged about 70 years, wd/o Jai Karan, s/o Bhagwana, R/o Village Khanpur, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban, Sub Division No.1, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Kaithal.

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

..……..Opposite Parties.

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

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Satish Garg, Advocate for complainant.

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

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that she is consumer of Ops being beneficiary vide electricity connection No.KS-1064 and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that the complainant received a bill dt. 28.09.2013 amounting to Rs.55,065/- in which the Ops imposed sundry charges of Rs.53,853/- which is illegal, null and void.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops and requested to delete the amount of Rs.53,853/- from the account of complainant and issue the correct bill but the officials of Ops asked the complainant that one electricity connection No.KU-15/0803W is in the name of her son Jai Bhagwan which has been disconnected due to PDCO and the amount of Rs.53,853/- shown as sundry charges added in the bill of account No.KS-1064 which is due against the connection of her son i.e. KU-15/0803W.  It is further alleged that Jai Bhagwan son of Jai Karan is the real son of complainant, so, the defaulted amount has been transferred in the said electricity connection No.KS-1064.  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 has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true and material facts are that as per official record of the Ops, the connection mentioned in the complaint bearing No.KS-1064 is running in the name of Sh. Jai Karan and all the bills are issued and paid in his name.  A bill amounting to Rs.55062/- was issued in the name of above-said consumer in the month of 10/2013 in which Rs.609/- were claimed as balance amount and Rs.53,853/- were claimed as sundry charges along with current bill.  As previously a connection bearing No.KU-15/803 which was in the name of Sh. Jai Bhagwan s/o Sh. Jai Karan was disconnected permanently vide PDCO No.76/375 due to non-payment of defaulting amount of Rs.53,853/-, so, on the basis of verification report of Area Incharge Sh. Pala Ram, AFM, the above-said defaulting amount of Rs.53,853/- was transferred in the connection No.KS-1064 which is in the name of Sh. Jai Karan (father of Sh. Jai Bhagwan) being user of the connection.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  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 Ops vide electricity connection No.KS-1064 and has been paying the bills regularly.  The complainant received a bill dt. 28.09.2013 amounting to Rs.55,065/- in which the Ops imposed sundry charges of Rs.53,853/- which is illegal, null and void.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops contends that as per official record of the Ops, the connection mentioned in the complaint bearing No.KS-1064 is running in the name of Sh. Jai Karan and all the bills are issued and paid in his name.  A bill amounting to Rs.55062/- was issued in the name of above-said consumer in the month of 10/2013 in which Rs.609/- were claimed as balance amount and Rs.53,853/- were claimed as sundry charges along with current bill.  As previously a connection bearing No.KU-15/803 which was in the name of Sh. Jai Bhagwan s/o Sh. Jai Karan was disconnected permanently vide PDCO No.76/375 due to non-payment of defaulting amount of Rs.53,853/-, so, on the basis of verification report of Area Incharge Sh. Pala Ram, AFM, the above-said defaulting amount of Rs.53,853/- was transferred in the connection No.KS-1064 which is in the name of Sh. Jai Karan (father of Sh. Jai Bhagwan) being user of the connection.  On careful perusal of record available on the file, we find that the connection bearing No.KS-1064 is in the name of Sh. Jai Karan.  Sh. Jai Karan expired on 17.04.2012 and after his death, Smt. Parvati moved an application on 14.11.2013 regarding the transfer of connection No.KS-1064 but the Ops did not take any action on this application.  So, we find that the complainant being beneficiary is consumer of Ops.  The authority submitted by ld. Counsel for the Ops titled as Hari Prasad Vs. M.U.H.B.V.N.L. Panchkula & others, 2010(1) CPC page 435 is not applicable in this regard.  So far as the amount of Rs.53853/- bearing connection No.KU-15/803 of Sh. Jai Bhagwan is concerned.  In this regard, the complainant has produced copy of ration-card which was made on 30.09.2005 and in the said ration-card, the name of Sh. Jai Karan, Parvati Devi and Kavita are mentioned and the name of Sh. Jai Bhagwan is not mentioned in this ration-card which means that Sh. Jai Bhagwan is residing separately from his parents since more than nine years.  So, we are of the considered view that the amount of Rs.53,853/- of connection No.KU-15/803 is wrongly added in the account No.KS-1064.  Hence, the Ops are deficient on their part while rendering services to the complainant.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to delete Rs.53,853/- from the account of complainant bearing No.KS-1064.  However, the Ops are at liberty to recover the said amount from Sh. Jai Bhagwan, the son of complainant.  Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  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.16.01.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.229/13.

Date of instt.: 21.10.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 16.01.2015.

Parvati aged about 70 years, wd/o Jai Karan, s/o Bhagwana, R/o Village Khanpur, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban, Sub Division No.1, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Kaithal.

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

..……..Opposite Parties.

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

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Satish Garg, Advocate for complainant.

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

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that she is consumer of Ops being beneficiary vide electricity connection No.KS-1064 and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that the complainant received a bill dt. 28.09.2013 amounting to Rs.55,065/- in which the Ops imposed sundry charges of Rs.53,853/- which is illegal, null and void.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops and requested to delete the amount of Rs.53,853/- from the account of complainant and issue the correct bill but the officials of Ops asked the complainant that one electricity connection No.KU-15/0803W is in the name of her son Jai Bhagwan which has been disconnected due to PDCO and the amount of Rs.53,853/- shown as sundry charges added in the bill of account No.KS-1064 which is due against the connection of her son i.e. KU-15/0803W.  It is further alleged that Jai Bhagwan son of Jai Karan is the real son of complainant, so, the defaulted amount has been transferred in the said electricity connection No.KS-1064.  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 has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true and material facts are that as per official record of the Ops, the connection mentioned in the complaint bearing No.KS-1064 is running in the name of Sh. Jai Karan and all the bills are issued and paid in his name.  A bill amounting to Rs.55062/- was issued in the name of above-said consumer in the month of 10/2013 in which Rs.609/- were claimed as balance amount and Rs.53,853/- were claimed as sundry charges along with current bill.  As previously a connection bearing No.KU-15/803 which was in the name of Sh. Jai Bhagwan s/o Sh. Jai Karan was disconnected permanently vide PDCO No.76/375 due to non-payment of defaulting amount of Rs.53,853/-, so, on the basis of verification report of Area Incharge Sh. Pala Ram, AFM, the above-said defaulting amount of Rs.53,853/- was transferred in the connection No.KS-1064 which is in the name of Sh. Jai Karan (father of Sh. Jai Bhagwan) being user of the connection.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  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 Ops vide electricity connection No.KS-1064 and has been paying the bills regularly.  The complainant received a bill dt. 28.09.2013 amounting to Rs.55,065/- in which the Ops imposed sundry charges of Rs.53,853/- which is illegal, null and void.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops contends that as per official record of the Ops, the connection mentioned in the complaint bearing No.KS-1064 is running in the name of Sh. Jai Karan and all the bills are issued and paid in his name.  A bill amounting to Rs.55062/- was issued in the name of above-said consumer in the month of 10/2013 in which Rs.609/- were claimed as balance amount and Rs.53,853/- were claimed as sundry charges along with current bill.  As previously a connection bearing No.KU-15/803 which was in the name of Sh. Jai Bhagwan s/o Sh. Jai Karan was disconnected permanently vide PDCO No.76/375 due to non-payment of defaulting amount of Rs.53,853/-, so, on the basis of verification report of Area Incharge Sh. Pala Ram, AFM, the above-said defaulting amount of Rs.53,853/- was transferred in the connection No.KS-1064 which is in the name of Sh. Jai Karan (father of Sh. Jai Bhagwan) being user of the connection.  On careful perusal of record available on the file, we find that the connection bearing No.KS-1064 is in the name of Sh. Jai Karan.  Sh. Jai Karan expired on 17.04.2012 and after his death, Smt. Parvati moved an application on 14.11.2013 regarding the transfer of connection No.KS-1064 but the Ops did not take any action on this application.  So, we find that the complainant being beneficiary is consumer of Ops.  The authority submitted by ld. Counsel for the Ops titled as Hari Prasad Vs. M.U.H.B.V.N.L. Panchkula & others, 2010(1) CPC page 435 is not applicable in this regard.  So far as the amount of Rs.53853/- bearing connection No.KU-15/803 of Sh. Jai Bhagwan is concerned.  In this regard, the complainant has produced copy of ration-card which was made on 30.09.2005 and in the said ration-card, the name of Sh. Jai Karan, Parvati Devi and Kavita are mentioned and the name of Sh. Jai Bhagwan is not mentioned in this ration-card which means that Sh. Jai Bhagwan is residing separately from his parents since more than nine years.  So, we are of the considered view that the amount of Rs.53,853/- of connection No.KU-15/803 is wrongly added in the account No.KS-1064.  Hence, the Ops are deficient on their part while rendering services to the complainant.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to delete Rs.53,853/- from the account of complainant bearing No.KS-1064.  However, the Ops are at liberty to recover the said amount from Sh. Jai Bhagwan, the son of complainant.  Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  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.16.01.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.