Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/225/2014

Vijay Kumar S/o.Charanjeet Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

U.H.B.V.N Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pawan Kumar Lehana

31 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR.

 

 

                                                               Complaint No. 225 of 2014.

                                                               Date of institution: 13.05.2014

                                                               Date of decision: 31.08.2017.

 

 

Vijay Kumar aged about 55 years, son of Charanjeet Lal, resident of Mohalla Kumarghati, Village Sadhaura, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                    …Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Division Office Sadhaura, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Sub Divisional Officer.

 

2. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Head office, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula through its MD/ Authorized Officer.

 

 

….Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE    SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                   SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                   SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.          

 

 

Present:       Sh. Pawan Kumar Lehana, Advocate, for complainant.   

                    Shri Jaipal Singh, Advocate for OPs

 

 

ORDER (SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

 

 

1.                The complainant Vijay Kumar has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.                Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant being the husband of the tenant of the shop has got installed an electricity connection in his name under Account No.JS/11/1567A-L from the department of the OPs. From the beginning of the tenancy, the complainant has been making the payment of the electricity bill issued by the OPs. The OPs have been issuing the bills of the electricity supply to the complainant on the average basis on the plea that the meter installed in the premises is the defective one. Although the complainant is running only a small sweet shop in the said shop and the consumption of the electricity by the complainant was very less even than the complainant was compelled to pay on the average basis to the OPs. The complainant has requested the Ops a number of times to change the electric meter installed in the shop in question on the plea that the complainant was suffering a great monetary loss as he was compelled to make the payment of the electricity bill not for the electricity consumed by him but on the average basis and it was assured by the Ops that as and when the original supply is estimated by the checking meter, the excess amount collected from the complainant will be adjusted in his later bills amount or the amount will be refunded to him by the OPs and his request of changing the defective meter was every time turned down either on one pretext or the other. Now the complainant was astonished to receive a bill No.315/07.04.2014 of the above said electricity connection from the office of the OPs for an amount of Rs.67,182/- to be payable on dated 28.04.2014. In the above said bill, the OPs have levied an amount of Rs.64312/- as sundry charges/ allowances. The complainant after receiving the above said bill immediately approached the OPs and requested them not to charge the above said amount of Rs.64312/- from the complainant as he was not liable to pay the said charges but the OP refused to do the same. Hence, this complaint, wherein it has been prayed that OPs be directed to refund the excess charges, if any charged from complainant and to deduct the amount of Rs.64312/- levied in the bill as sundry allowances. They be further directed to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.  

3.                Upon notice, OP appeared and filed their written statement taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has no locus standi to file and the maintain the present complaint; complainant has no cause of action to file the present; complaint of the complainant is not legally maintainable and on merit it is stated that complainant is a tenant under Smt. Sudesh Kumari and does not relate to the OPs, hence the OPs have no knowledge regarding tenancy.  The consumer Naresh Kumar is not making the payment of the bills regularly and a sum of Rs.64112/- is still standing against the consumer till December, 2013. The bills were being issued to the complainant on average basis. The meter was checked and it was found that the meter was showing consumed 21989 units and the respondents  have issued bill of 8520 units till 12/13. In this way the OPs have charged less 13469 units and the amount being shown as arrears in the bills is the difference of units less charged. The meter is  not defective and as such request to change the meter does not arise. The bills were issued by the mistake by OPs on average basis, whereas the meter was working correctly and the account has been over hauled. Rests contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In support of his learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit as Annexure CW1/A and documents such as Annexure C1 to C6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                On the other hand learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Ram Kumar, SDO, UHBVN Sadhaura, as Annexure RA and documents as Annexure R1 and R2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record available on the file.

7.                After hearing both the parties and having gone through the documents placed on the file it has been pointed that all electricity bills (Annexure C1 to C6 ) have been issued in the name of Shri Naresh Kumar S/o Lekh Raj instead of Vijay Kumar S/o Shri Charanjit Lal as complainant.  At the outset it is contended by learned counsel for the OPs that the complainant does not fall within the definition of “Consumer” as the electricity connection bearing A/c No.JS/11/1567 A-L (Y14 J5051567N) exists in the name of Shri Naresh Kumar and not Vijay Kumar.

8.                In support of his arguments learned counsel for the OPs has referred case law titled as Hari Parshad versus MUHBVNL Panchkula and others, 2010(2)  CLT, 558 wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that: -

“Consumer Protection Act,  1986 Section 2 (1)(d) (iii)- Consumer- Beneficiary – Electricity Connection – Electricity connection in the name of ‘A’ being used by ‘H’ – Except for bare averments of the complainants that he is beneficiary of the said connection, there is no other material to sustain his claim- The complainant did not get connection transferred in his name in the records of the respondents – The complainant cannot be treated as beneficiary  of service provided by OP/respondent- The litigation appears to be proxy litigation on behalf of ‘A’ in whose name the electric connection has been issued - Complainant ‘H’ cannot be considered to be a consumer of respondent.”

 

                  

9.                In support of his version learned counsel for the OPs has also referred the case law titled as “UHBVN Vs. Hans Raj, FA No.3307 of 2004 decided on 18.04.2011 passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula.

10.              So, in view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that complainant is not a consumer and hence, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.31.08.2017

 

                                                     (SATPAL)

                                                     PRESIDENT

                                                     D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                     AT JAGADHRI

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                         MEMBER

 

 

Note:           Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                                     (SATPAL)

                                                     PRESIDENT

                                                     D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                     AT JAGADHRI