Haryana

Sonipat

CC/52/2016

Ramkesh S/o Jai Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Anil Bhardwaj

17 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

 

                                    Complaint No.52 of 2016

                                    Instituted on:16.02.2016

                                    Date of order:17.08.2016

 

 

Ramkesh son of Jai Parkash resident of village Malikpur, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

……Complainant

 

                   VERSUS

 

1.UHBVN Ltd. Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula, through its MD.

2.XEN UHBVN Ltd., Fazilpur, distt. Sonepat.

3.SDO S/D UHBVN Lt.d, 171, Bhalgarh, Sonepat.

  ……Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

 

Argued by: Sh. Anil Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Jagdeep Balyan, Adv. for respondents.

 

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          J.L. Gupta, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he had applied for the tubewell electricity connection and has deposited certain amount with the respondents from time to time.  But the respondents have only installed two poles instead of three poles, whereas they have taken Rs.21000/- for installing three poles from the complainant.   The complainant has requested the respondents in this regard, who has assured that they will adjust Rs.7000/- in the bill of the complainant.  The complainant has received a bill dated 18.12.2015 for Rs.10,000/-  and after receiving the same, the complainant went to deposit Rs.3000/- after deducting Rs.7000/-, the respondents have refused to accept the same and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

 

2.       The respondents appeared and filed the written statement submitting therein that the complainant has deposited Rs.21000/- for installing three poles.  The respondents have issued three poles to the complainant.   The complainant never moved any application to the respondent no.3 for adjusting the amount of Rs.7000/-.  The respondents have sent the correct bill for Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  NO assurance of any kind was ever given by the respondents to the complainant.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that  the respondents have charged Rs.21000/- from the complainant for installing three poles, but they have installed only two poles and in this way, they have charged Rs.7000/- in excess from the complainant.

 

         Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complainant has deposited Rs.21000/- for installing three poles.  The respondents have issued three poles to the complainant.   The complainant never moved any application to the respondent no.3 for adjusting the amount of Rs.7000/-.  The respondents have sent the correct bill for Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  NO assurance of any kind was ever given by the respondents to the complainant.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondents.

         In the present case, during the course of arguments, the complainant has placed on record 4 photographs to prove that the respondents have charged Rs.21000/- i.e. Rs.7000/- per span for installation of total 3 span, but they have only erected two spans and in this way, they have charged an excess amount of Rs.7000/- from the complainant.  We have also perused the document Annexure C-3 i.e. the application moved by the complainant before the SDO UHBVN Murthal vide which he has requested that the excess amount be transferred in the account of his electricity bill against the tubewell connection.

         In our view, it is well established that the respondents have charged Rs.21000/- from the complainant, but they have erected only two spans and in this way, they have charged an excess amount of Rs.7000/- from the complainant and the complainant is entitled to get refund of his excess amount from the respondents.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to adjust the amount of Rs.7000/- (Rs.seven thousand) in the future bills of the complainant and further to compensate him to the tune of Rs.1000/- (Rs.one thousand) for rendering deficient services, harassment and humiliation and this amount of compensation is also directed to be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (J.L. Gupta Member) (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced:17.08.2016