Haryana

Sonipat

CC/369/2015

Ram Mehar Singh S/o Chhotu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Narender Singh

26 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

                                               Complaint No.369 of 2015

                                Instituted on:01.10.2015

                                Date of order:08.06.2016

 

Ram Mehar Singh son of Chhotu Ram, resident of village Khanpur Kalan, tehsil Gohana,  district Sonepat.

                                                      ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.SDO  UHBVN Ltd. Sub Division Gohana, district Sonepat.

2.XEN, UHBVN Ltd. Division Gohana, Sonepat.

                                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.  Narender Balhara Adv. for complainant.

           Sh.  VP Sharma, Adv. For respondents.                

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he is consumer of the respondent vide old connection no. KH11-0384 and new account no.SG24-3920-N.  The complainant has earlier filed the complaint before this Forum, but the same was dismissed by this Forum on 18.6.2015. The complainant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission which was fixed for 14.10.2015.  But before dismissal of the said complaint, this Forum has passed an order against the respondents on the application filed by the complainant for installation of the meter with connection and by the said order, the respondents installed the meter and restored the connection.  The complainant regularly deposited the bill amount after restoration of the connection  and no due was left towards the complainant before 11.8.2015.    However, the complainant was surprised to receive the bill dated 11.8.2015 from 22.5.2015 to 22.7.205 for Rs.27892/-. This amount was malafidely and intentionally added in the said bill.  It was mentioned in the earlier filed complaint by the complainant that the electricity meter issued by the respondent no.2 had stopped working before 7.10.1998 due to some internal fault. The respondents asked the complainant to purchase the meter at his own.  The complainant purchased new meter of Bentex Company and has deposited the same with the respondents alongwith testing & meter inspection fees i.e. Rs.30+50 dated 7.10.1998 and after that no formalities was due towards the complainant.  Since then the complainant is making the payment of bills on average basis  which was very higher.  The complainant has never violated any terms and conditions of the respondents.    After waiting for a long period of 10 years,  the complainant appeared before Bijli Sabha Gohana  and made a written application on 26.10.2009 for replacement of the meter and for correction of bills issued on average basis and it was assured that his problems will be solved.  On 15.12.2012, the respondents official came at his premises and took the old defective meter.  After this, the complainant made many requests to the respondents to install the meter, but of no use.  Thereafter the complainant has given an application dated 25.8.2015  to the respondent no.1 for withdrawal of sundry charges.  But the respondents denied to take the said application. There is no fault on the part of the complainant and the respondents had issued the said bill malafidely & intentionally only to harass and humiliate the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that this Forum has earlier dismissed the complaint of the complainant vide order dated 18.6.2015 and the appeal filed by the complainant against the said order has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission on 21.4.2016. An amount of more-than Rs.32000/- is still due against the complainant.  The respondents have ordered for permanent disconnection on 31.12.2015, but when the employees of the respondents went there for PDCO, the complainant has forcibly obstructed them from doing PDCO.  The matter pertains to the year 1998 to 2007 and thus, the present complaint is time barred.  The present complaint is not maintainable and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint since the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

          In the present complaint, the complainant has submitted that earlier he has also filed the complaint before this Forum. 

          The complainant with the present complaint has also appended the copy of order dated 18.6.2015 passed in earlier filed complaint bearing no.266 of 2014 instituted on 01.10.2014 titled as Ram Mehar Vs. SDO UHBVN.  The above said complaint of the complainant was dismissed by this Forum vide order dated 18.06.2015.

          Relevant portion of the order dated 18.6.2015 passed in complaint no.266 of 2014 by this Forum is reproduced below:-

          “The perusal of the above documents of the respondents shows that the complainant has not deposited the electricity bills after 2/2/2007, but despite this, the respondents prepared a sundry in the year of 2010 and an amount of Rs.7265/- were adjusted in the account of the complainant and after that also, the complainant has not deposited even a single penny with the respondents regarding the consumption of electricity energy.  In our view, the action taken by the respondents in the matter of the complainant is legal and perfectly justified because the complainant is a chronic defaulter and he himself is liable for his own acts and deeds.  In our view the complainant does not deserve any leniency.”

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that this Forum has earlier dismissed the complaint of the complainant vide order dated 18.6.2015 and the appeal filed by the complainant against the said order has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission on 21.4.2016. An amount of more-than Rs.32000/- is still due against the complainant.  The respondents have ordered for permanent disconnection on 31.12.2015, but when the employees of the respondents went there for PDCO, the complainant has forcibly obstructed them from doing PDCO.  The matter pertains to the year 1998 to 2007 and thus, the present complaint is time barred. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          In support of his contentions, he has placed on record the documents marked as JN-R/1 and JN-R/2.  Further the respondents have placed on record the document marked as JN-R/3 i.e. copy of order dated 21.4.2016 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula.

4.        After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that even by filing the present complaint, the complainant is not able to prove any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  The complainant by twisting and intermingling the facts wants to get relief against the respondents, which cannot be allowed in any manner.  On the other hand, the respondents have been able to prove that there is no deficiency in service of any kind on their part, rather the complainant himself is liable for his own acts and deeds.  The complainant has filed the appeal against the order dated 18.6.2015 passed by this Forum before the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, but the same was got dismissed as withdrawn by the complainant on 21.4.2016 for the reasons best known to the complainant.  In our view, there is no merit in the present complaint and the same deserves to be dismissed.  We order accordingly.

          We have also heard the arguments on the application dated 25.2.2016 filed by the complainant for initiating contempt of court proceedings against the respondents.

          Reply to this application was not filed by the respondents. 

          But since the complainant has failed to prove any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents in the main case, no further action is required to be taken in the application filed for initiating contempt of court proceedings and thus the same has become infructuous as the complaint’s complaint has been dismissed by this Forum since it has no merit.

          Accordingly, the interim order dated 01.10.2015  passed in favour of the complainant by this Forum has no value in the eyes of law.  Thus, we also vacate the interim order dated 01.10.2015 with immediate effect.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF                        DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:08.06.2016