Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/327/2011

Raj Kumar S/o Babu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

The S.D.O.UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Saini

27 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 327 of 2011.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 11.04.2011 

                                                                                          Date of decision: 27.01.2017

 

Raj Kumar son of Shri Babu Ram, resident of Village Gondapura, Sub Tehsil Mustafabad, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

…Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. The S.D.O. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Division, Mustafabad, District Yamuna Nagar. 
2. X. En., U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                        ...Respondents

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh.Surjeet Singh Saini, Advocate for complainant.

                         Sh. Satish Sangwan, Advocate for respondents.

 

ORDER

 

1                       The present complaint has been filed by Sh. Raj Kumar under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant received a bill bearing No. 1193 dated 22.03.2011 for an amount of Rs. 2,88,362/- and on receipt of the said bill the complainant approached to respondent No.1 (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs) Nigam in this regard and official of the Op No.1 told to the complainant that an amount of Rs. 2,87,414/- has been added in the said bill as arrear which was outstanding against the firm M/s Durga Gramodyog, Mustafabad.  Upon which, complainant asked to the officials of the OP No.1 Nigam that he is neither the proprietor or the partner of the said firm nor he has any concern with the said firm and requested to delete the said arrear amount from the consumption bill of the house of complainant but the officials of OP No.1 have openly threatened that if the complainant did not deposit the said bill, they will forcibly disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to withdraw the disputed bill amount and to issue fresh bill as per actual consumption and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is an abuse of process of law; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the present complaint is not legally maintainable as the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that previously a connection bearing No. B-V/12 was installed at the premises of the complainant  in the name of M/s Durga Gramodyog Village Gandapur through its proprietor Anil Kumar. The complainant and his son Anil Kumar were user of the said connection and a sum of Rs. 2,88,362/- was outstanding against the said connection. The said defaulting amount was transferred in the account of the father of the complainant namely Raj Kumar which connection is installed at the house of Raj Kumar & Anil Kumar. The complainant is legally bound to pay the said amount and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as photo copy of bill bearing No. 1193 dated 22.03.2011 as Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence short affidavit of Sh. Surinder Singh Dahiya, SDO as Annexure RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

7.                     The only grievances of the complainant is that an amount of Rs. 2,87,414/- has been illegally and wrongly shown as sundry charges in the bill bearing No. 1193 dated 22.03.2011 (Annexure C-1) by the OPs Nigam and the same is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards the para No.5 of his complaint in which it has been stated that complainant was neither proprietor nor partner of the firm M/s Durga Gramodyog, Mustafabad as the OPs Nigam has added the defaulting amount of the said firm in the domestic electricity bill of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that complainant has requested so many times to the OPs to delete the amount of Rs. 2,87,414/- from the bill but the OPs was adamant not to do the same.

8.                     On the other hand, the only version of the OPs Nigam that previously connection bearing No. B-V/12 was installed at the premises of the complainant in the name of M/s Durga Gramodyog village Gandapur through its proprietor Anil Kumar who is son of the complainant Raj Kumar and both the complainant as well as his son Anil Kumar were user of the same connection and a sum of Rs. 2,88,362/- was outstanding against the said connection. Hence, the OPs Nigam has rightly and legally transferred the defaulting amount of Rs. 2,88,362/- in the domestic electricity connection bearing No. YM-06/7105 K-Q vide bill No.1193 dated 22.03.2011 (Annexure C-1). Lastly requested for dismissal of the complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Ops Nigam as the OPs Nigam has totally failed to produce any evidence in support of their version. The OPs Nigam has only filed short affidavit of Sh. Surinder Singh Dahiya, SDO, UHBVNL and except this, not a single document has been placed on file to prove that any electricity connection was standing in the name of M/s Durga Gramodyog Village Gandapur through its proprietor Anil Kumar and further the OPs Nigam has also failed to file any cogent evidence that the complainant being the father of said Anil Kumar was user of the electricity connection bearing No. B-V/12 as alleged in para No.3 of the written statement. The present complaint was filed by the complainant on 11.04.2011 and since then the OPs Nigam except filing the written statement and short affidavit  has not taken any step to prove its case by filing any cogent evidence. Even, the OPs Nigam has also not placed on file any copy of notice issued to the said firm M/s Durga Gramodyog, Mustafabad for recovery of the defaulting amount. We have also perused the written statement minutely in which also not a single iota of word has been disclosed by the OPs Nigam that the defaulting amount was relating to which period. In the absence of any cogent evidence this forum is unable to accept the version of the OPs Nigam and have no option except to partly allow the complaint of the complainant.

10.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Ops Nigam to delete the defaulting amount of Rs. 2,87,414/- alongwith surcharge, if any, as shown in the bill bearing No. 1193 dated 22.03.2011 of the electricity connection of the complainant. However, OPs Nigam is at liberty to charge the defaulting amount from the concerned firm M/s Durga Gramodyog, Mustafabad as per law, if so advised. Further, the Higher Officer of the Ops Nigam is also directed to take legal action against the defaulting officials of the OP No.1 who have not taken any effective steps to recover the defaulting huge amount from the defaulting firm in time. After all it is a big loss to the revenue of the State of Haryana. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the Managing Director of the Ops Nigam, Panchkula. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court: 27.01.2017.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                           DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER