Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/338/2014

Amrik Singh S/o Gopal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.Bali

24 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

                                                                  Complaint No.338 of 2014.

                                                                   Date of Institution:11.8.2014.

                                                                   Date of Decision:24.11.2017.

Amrik Singh aged 50 years son of Shri Gopal Singh, r/o H.No.248, East Bhatia Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                         

                                                                                                    …Complainant.                                     

                                           Versus

1.       Executive Engineer (op) Division, UHBVN Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

2.       Sub Divisional Officer (op) UHBVBL, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                    

                                                                                                      ..Respondents.  

 

Before:        SH. SATPAL …………….    PRESIDENT

                    SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, ………...MEMBER

 

Present: Sh.A.K.Bali, Advocate for complainant.

              Sh.R.K.Kamboj, Adv.for respondents.

 

ORDER   : (SATPAL, PRESIDENT).

1.                The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter the respondents shall be referred as OPs). 

2.           Brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant is consumer having electricity connection No.Y43YT262115W and has been paying the bills regularly.    Previously, the aforesaid connection was in the name of Shri Gopal Singh and there was some dispute in respect of electricity charges and to settle the dispute the complainant had deposited the entire outstanding amount with the OP and had cleared the entire amount which was outstanding against Gopal Singh.  After clearing the entire outstanding amount, the complainant got transferred the aforementioned connection in his name and got installed the new electricity meter which started working from 0 Units.  But the complainant was shocked to receive the bill No.771, dated 24.3.2014 issued by the Ops as in the said bill the Ops have demanded an amount of Rs.72741/- from the complainant by showing the consumed units as “2420” and arrears as Rs.59234/- whereas the complainant has not consumed the electricity to such extent as such the respondents have sent the wrong and illegal bill.  The illegality committed by the Ops is very much clear from the aforesaid bill where the old meter reading is shown as ‘1’ and new meter reading is shown as ‘1421’ whereas in the column of units consumed it is shown as ‘2420’.  In the said electricity bill the Ops have also shown Rs.59234/- whereas there was nothing outstanding against the said electricity connection.  The complainant contacted the Ops to withdraw the above said illegal amount but of no use.  Further the complainant was shocked to receive the bill No.769, dated 24.5.2014 wherein the consumed units as 1421 (old reading) and 1822 (new reading) has been shown and the  units consumed has been mentioned as 401 and the total billed amount is Rs.70532/-, however, in the said bill the Ops have deducted the amount of Rs.6566/- which shows that the Ops have admitted their illegality of sending wrong bill by calculating the wrong units.  After receipt of the said bill, the complainant again approached the Ops and the Ops assured the complainant that they will make the necessary correction in the next bill but instead of correcting the bill the complainant issued bill No.769, dated 23.7.2014 wherein the Ops have demanded an illegal amount of Rs.75584/- from the complainant showing the arrears of Rs.72589/-.  Several requests were made to the Ops to correct the bill in question but of no use, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint by directing the Ops to set aside the bills. No.771, dated 24.3.2014, bill No.769, dated 24.5.2014, bill No.769 dated 23.7.2014 and to issue the fresh bill as per actual consumption of the complainant and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and Rs.5000/- as cost of proceedings. 

3.                Upon notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections alleging therein that the complaint is not legally maintainable in the present form; the complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint; the complainant is not consumer of the Op and the complainant is legally estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum.  The true facts are that previously the account bearing No.YT26/20115 was released and thereafter the connection of the consumer was disconnected due to non-payment of the electricity charges, but later on the connection of the consumer was restored at the request of the complainant as the consumer had assured to deposit the amount in regular way, but intentionally the consumer had failed and became regular defaulter in paying the due amount and thereby the consumer has become habitual in not depositing the amount of demand bills.  Hence, the consumer is regular defaulter and the present demand bill of the consumer has been calculated with the defaulting amount.  On merits the Ops have controverted the pleas taken by the complainant and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and it has been alleged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and thus prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

4.                To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as annexure CW/A, copies of bills and receipt as annexure C.1 to C.5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

5.                The Ops have tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Ramesh Saini, SDO as annexure RW/A, documents such as copy of RCO/MCO as annexure R.1, copy of application as annexure R.2, copy of payment made with application as annexure R.3, copy of assessment as annexure R.4 and copy of memo dated 27.8.2013 as annexure R.5 and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

6.                During the course of arguments the Ops has moved an application on 24.7.2017 requesting to grant them permission by way of additional evidence to place on record the undertaking given by the complainant Amrik Singh about the defaulting amount relating to his father Shri Gopal Singh.

7.                The complainant has objected to the production of aforesaid undertaking of Amrik Singh complainant in additional evidence on the ground that the said undertaking had been procured by the Ops by misrepresentation and the Ops were given many opportunities to adduce their evidence and hence, they should not be allowed to place the said under taking on record at this belated stage.

8.                We have gone through the facts of the present case as well as the contents of undertaking sought to be adduced on record by the Ops.  The under taking of the complainant is a vital piece of evidence in the matter and is of utmost importance to resolve the controversy between the parties and thus the application of the Ops is hereby allowed in the interest of justice and the undertaking is taken on record as annexure R.6.

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

10.              After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, it is clear that the complainant is consumer of the Ops and has been paying the bills regularly.  It has also come on record that previously Shri Gopal Singh was the consumer of the Ops having electric connection No.YT26-2115 and due to his default in the making the payment the connection was disconnected and thereafter the connection was restored by the Ops.  The factum of re-connection of the aforesaid connection at the premises of the complainant are evident from the perusal of annexure R.1 to R.5.  Even the factum of re-connection is not disputed by the complainant.  The main controversy between the parties is whether the complainant is liable to make the payment of Rs.59234/- as shown arrears in the bills annexure C.3 to C.5. 

11.              The version of the complainant is that he had already made the payment of outstanding amount which related to the account number of his father Shri Gopal Singh and thus the Ops have no right to demand the payment of aforesaid amount of Rs,59234/- as arrears from him.  The learned counsel for the complainant hotly contended that there is lapse on the part of the Ops while demanding the arrears belonging to the father of the complainant and that the re-connection was made only after the payment of all dues by the complainant.  The learned counsel drew the attention of this Forum towards annexure C.1 vide which the payment of arrears has allegedly been made by the complainant and thus prayed for directions to the Ops to waive off the aforesaid demand of arrears of Rs.59234/-. 

12.              On the other hand the version of the Ops is that the re-connection order was issued by the Op No.1 photocopy of which is available on record as annexure R.5 whereby it is crystal clear that the defaulting amount was to be payable by the complainant in three installments.  Further the Ops had placed reliance upon the undertaking (annexure R.6) given by the father of the complainant which was witnessed by the complainant at the time of release of re-connection order and thus it has been claimed by the Ops that the complainant is liable to make the aforesaid amount of Rs.59234/- as shown as arrears in the disputed bills annexure C.3 to C.5.

13.              We have gone through the annexure R.1 to R.5 which relates to the re-connection order.  The Op No.1 has issued the directions vide letter dated 27.8.2013 copy of which is available on record as R.5 to the Op No.2 that the defaulting amount be accepted from the complainant in three equal installments as per the sale circular after completing all formalities.  Further the father of the complainant before the release of re-connection order had undertaken vide annexure R.6 to make the payment of Rs.59234/- in three installments i.e. Rs.25000/-, Rs.20000/- and Rs.14234/- in consideration of having consumed the electricity against the account No.YT26-2115 by him and the said undertaking was executed by the father of the complainant in the presence of the complainant as the same bears the signature of the complainant as witness.  The contents of said undertaking annexure R.6 cannot be doubted as the execution of the same and the signature thereon by the complainant and his father has not been disputed by the complainant and thus the version of the complainant that he is not liable to make the payment of arrears as shown in the disputed bills as annexure C.3 to C.5 has not been found tenable.  However, it is relevant to mention here that the Ops while filing the reply and tendering the evidence in the present case has not bothered to clarify about the alleged payment of Rs.25000/- by the complainant.  Moreover it was the duty of the OP No.2 and CA to ensure that the payment of installments as ordered by Op No.1 vide annexure R.5 is made by the complainant before the release of re-connection in the name of the complainant in his premises. It reflects clear lapse on the part of Ops while releasing the re-connection order in the name of the complainant.  Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case it is expedient to issue the following directions to the meet the ends of justice.

(i).     The Ops are directed to re-examine and ascertain the factum of payment of Rs.25000/- by the complainant as first installment as per the undertaking annexure R.6 at the time of re-connection order and as alleged by the complainant.  In case the aforesaid amount of Rs.25000/- is found deposited by the complainant out of defaulting amount of Rs.59234/- belonging to his father Gopal Singh then the said amount of Rs.25000/- be deducted out of the arrears shown in the disputed bill annexure C.3 to C.5 and the second installment of Rs.20000/- and third installment of Rs.14234/- be recovered from the complainant without any surcharge/interest/penalty etc. with the future bills.

(ii)     The complainant shall deposit the outstanding amount as determined by the Ops in compliance of the directions mentioned at Sr. No.1 above.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs.   File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court:24.11.2017.               

                                                                             (SATPAL)

                                                                             PRESIDENT.

 

                                                                                                                           

                                           (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                                                                             

                                             MEMBER.