Haryana

Karnal

CC/708/2019

Rani Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer (OP) Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Singh Dhull

10 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 708 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.16.10.2019

                                                        Date of Decision: 10.03.2023

 

Rani Devi aged about 45 years wife of Shri Jaibir Singh, resident of village Padha, Tehsil Assandh, District Karal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Sub Divisional Officer (OP),  Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Division Jundla, Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Deepak Dhull, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri B.P. Singh, counsel for the opposite party.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protectionj Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is consumer of OP and having an electricity connection bearing account no.L34-JD38-2484, which has been taken by the complainant in the year 2018. At the time of getting aforesaid electricity connection, the complainant had deposited an security amount of Rs.9265/- and other expenses as per demands of the OP. From the very beginning after installation of aforesaid electricity connection, in the month of April, 2018 the cable of Transformer was burnt in the rain, but the officials of the OP could not cure it even repeated requests of the complainant. On this OP had given assurance that bill of the aforesaid electricity connection will not be sent by his office until and unless the supply will not be reconnected. But even after waiting sufficiently, when the supply was not reconnected, then the complainant under compelling circumstances on 15.04.2018 had moved a written representation to the OP with a request to provide requisite electrical equipments i.e. Pin Insulator, Switch Pipe and Fuse etc. In response of said written representation, the concerned ALM namely Naveen on 14.05.2019 has made a report that the consumer is facing inconvenience due to melting of Cable, in order of cure the fault Single Wire/Cable is required to apply, so 12 insulators and 12 Pins are also required for that purpose. Even after recommendation of said ALM namely Naveen Kumar, the requisite electrical equipment have not been provided by the OP to the complainant. The complainant number of times visited the office of the OPs in this connection, but no fruitful purpose was served. Thereafter, on 08.01.2019, the complainant again moved another written representation before the office of OP and requested for connecting wire/cable of her electricity connection with the wire of fields 200 M, instead of earlier cable on 600M, with a view that HT wire would not melt in future. The aforesaid written representation was marked to AFM Ram Kishan for checking and report, but he has not taken any action in this matter.  Thereafter, on 11.01.2019, complainant moved another written representation before the OP and requested for taking necessary action for the curing the cable/wire of the electricity connection of the complainant, so that the supply may be re-started, as the supply over the aforesaid electricity connection was lying dead since more than six months and said electricity connection was remained in active condition only for approximately 70-75 hours upto 130 units from its installation. In response to aforesaid written representation dated 11.01.2019, OP on 05.03.2019 put the matter and marked to C/C with remarks “please do the needful and check the meter” resultantly the meter of the complainant was checked by Sohan Singh, L/M on 05.04.2019 and he made his report after inspecting the meter of the complainant and mentioned the status of meter “ok” and meter reading 133. It is further averred that in the first week of June 2019, complainant visited the office of OP and asked the status of her complaint, on this official of the OP stated that complete electrical equipments including new meter will be installed at the premises of the complainant within 2-3 days, but surprisingly they could not come there and have not restore the electric supply of the aforesaid electricity connection of the complainant. Complainant again on 20.06.2019 and thereafter on 02.07.2019 visited the office of OP with written representation but OP accepted the same and has also failed to restore the electricity supply of the complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that an amount of Rs.18603/- is due and outstanding against the complainant, hence on 30.05.2019 said connection was PDCO due to non-payment of amount, vide PDCO no.64/23. It is further pleaded that the complaint is not entitled for refund of the security amount as alleged. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of receipt Ex.C1, copy of application dated 15.04.2018 Ex.C2, copy of endorsement of ALM Naveen dated 14.05.2018 Ex.C3, copies of applications dated 08.1.2019, 11.01.2019 Ex.C4 and Ex.C5, copy of endorsement of Sohan Singh LM dated 05.04.2019 Ex.C6, copy of application dated 02.07.2019 Ex.C7, postal receipt Ex.C8, photograph of spot Ex.C9, copy of Aadhar card of complainant Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 30.11.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajesh Kumar SDO Ex.OP1/A, copy of connection Dash Board aspx. Ex.OP1, copy of meter reading detail Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 06.06.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant has taken an electricity connection from the OP in the year 2018 and had deposited a security amount of Rs.9265/-. The cable of Transformer was burnt and in this regard complainant moved several applications to supply the electrical equipments but OP has failed to supply the same. OP neither supplied the electrical equipments nor refunded the security amount and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that an amount of Rs.18603/- was outstanding against the complainant, so on 30.05.2019 said connection was PDCO due to non-payment of bill amount. Complainant is not entitled for refund of the security amount as alleged and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           OP has taken a plea that an amount of Rs.18603/- is outstanding against the complainant, so on 30.05.2019 said connection was PDCO due to non-payment of amount, vide PDCO no.64/23 and complainant is not entitled for refund of the security amount. To prove its version, OP has placed on file copy of connection Dash Board aspx. Ex.OP1 and copy of meter reading detail Ex.OP2. It is evident from the copy of meter reading detail Ex.OP2, an amount of Rs.18603/- is outstanding against the complainant.

11.           The onus to prove her case was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Complainant has not placed on file any document or electricity bills to prove that she has/had been paying the electricity charges regularly. There is no provision to refund the security amount if the outstanding amount is pending or connection has been declared PDCO. Thus, the complainant herself is at fault for not paying the electricity bills. Hence, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced

Dated:10.03.2023                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

  Member                   Member