View 1550 Cases Against Uhbvnl
UHBVNL filed a consumer case on 14 Mar 2016 against Sunita in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/564/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 20 Apr 2016.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
HARYANA PANCHKULA
First appeal No.564 of 2014
Date of the Institution: 02.07.2014
Date of Decision: 14.03.2016
SDO, UHBVN Ltd., Model Town, Sub division, Sector 14, Sonepat.
.….Appellant
Versus
Sunita W/o Sh.Sandeep resident of Jagdishpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat.
.….Respondent
CORAM: Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
Present:- Mr.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant.
Respondent ex parte.
O R D E R
R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
1. It alleged by the complainant that on 24.10.2011 she deposited an amount of Rs.2080/- with the (Opposite Party) O.P. for taking domestic connection. She also deposited new electric meter with the O.P., but, it did not release the connection.
2. O.P. filed reply controverting her averments and alleged that on 14.07.2011 and 15.09.2011 the family members of the complainant were found committing theft of energy and penalty of Rs.48146/- was imposed upon the family members of Naresh Kumar. In order to avoid the payment of penalty, she moved application for obtaining the electricity connection in the same premises. The matter was investigated and found that premises were the same and the defaulting amount was outstanding against the family members of the complainant. It was alleged that Naresh Kumar filed a civil suit, which was pending in the court of law.
3. After hearing both the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat partly allowed the complaint and ordered as under:-
“So, in our view, non-release of the electricity connection in the name of the complainant in the premises for which she has applied for, without any lawful reason, is wrong, illegal and that amounts of a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Accordingly, it is directed to the respondent to release the electric connection in the name of the complainant in the premises for which she has applied for, within one month after expiry of the period for filing appeal by the respondent before the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula against this above.”
4. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the opposite party-appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. Arguments heard. File perused.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that previous connection, existing in this premises, was disconnected in the year 2011 for not depositing Rs.48146/-. Now they have applied through complainant for another connection which cannot be released. Learned District forum failed to take into consideration this aspect and wrongly allowed the complaint.
7. This argument is of no avail. Previous connection was in the name of Naresh Kumar, whereas now Sunita Devi W/o Sh.Sandeep has applied for the connection. If two families are residing in one house, it does not mean that they cannot take separate connection. Appellant-O.P. has failed to show that their’s a joint family and they are living together, copy of ration card etc. could have been produced to show jointness. In such a situation, if a person of another family has not deposited the amount, it does not mean that the other family cannot ask for the connection. Previous connection was existing in the cattle shed, whereas now the application has been filed for residential premises. Both are situated at different places, so this analogy cannot be applied in this complaint. The findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Hence the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
March14th, 2016 | Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench |
| R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench |
S.K.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.