Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/343/2013

Arjun Singh S/o Sheo ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen Shakkarwal

23 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 343 of 2013

                                                                                    Date of institution: 09.05.2013      

                                                                                    Date of decision: 23.06.2017

 

Arjun Singh, aged about 48 years, son of Shri Sheo Ram, resident of village Ranjitpur, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

…Complainant.

 

                                   Versus

1. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.
2. The Sub Divisional Officer, ‘OP’ Sub Division, UHBVN, Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.
3. Ganesh Dutt son of Shri Sham Lal, C/o Sharam Cement Store, Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                … Respondents.

 

 

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

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

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

 

 

Present:           Shri Parveen Shakkarwal, Advocate for complainant.

           Shri Zile Singh, Advocate for OP No.1 and 2.

           Shri Naveen Kaushal, Advocate for OP No.3

 

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)
 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs).

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that complainant was in need of tube-well electricity connection and accordingly he paid Rs.1,30,000/- on account of cost of Transformer, electricity wires, span cost and line charges, meter costs etc. to the OP No.3 as per instructions of the OP No.1 and 2  Nigam. The tubewell connection of the complainant was got released in the year 2010 and after that complainant was paying the electricity bills against the electricity connection/account No.RT-0826 regularly, however, complainant received a bill dated 10.07.2012 and on pursuing the bill, he was shocked to see that in the column of Sundry Charges a sum of Rs.3100/- has been wrongly mentioned as due towards the complainant. Upon which complainant inquired about the above said amount from the OP No.1 and 2 and the officials of the OP No.1 and 2 told him that that the aforesaid amount is regarding electricity meter cost which was not deposited by the complainant. After that complainant contacted the OP No.3 who was contractor of the OP No.1 and asked him as to why he did not deposit the cost of meter but he could not give any satisfactory reply. After the complainant went to office of the OP No.1 and 2 and requested them to take action against the OP No.3, who did not deposit the full amount and for not installing the full material however, the OP No.1 and 2 did not listen the complainant nor deleted the amount of Rs.3100/- from the bill in question. It has been further mentioned that transformer of the complainant is also leaking at the spot and is of inferior quality which also deserve to be replaced. Hence, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Lastly prayed for directing the OPs to delete amount of Rs.3100/- shown in the bill dated 10.07.2012 or in alternate OP No.3 be directed to deposit the said amount of Rs.3100/- which was not paid by him to the OPs Nigam after charging from the complainant and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A, photocopy of Bill dated 10.07.2012 as Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

4.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement. OP No.1 and 2 filed their reply jointly taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts are that OPs No.1 and 2 have levied absolutely legal charges and the complainant is bound to make the payment the same and on merit all the contents of the complaint were controverted and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objection. Lastly it has been mentioned that complainant is bound to make the payment of Rs.3100/- and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                     OP No.3 also appeared and filed written statement taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complaint of the complainant is false and frivolous; complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts. The true facts are that OP Company levied absolutely legal charges and the complainant is bound to make the same. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect. Lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP No.3.

6.                     In support of his case, learned counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Pardeep Panwar, SDO “OP” UHBVN, Bilaspur as Annexure RW/A, photocopy of audit report as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1 and 2.

7.                     Counsel for the OP No.3 also tendered into evidence short affidavit of OP No.3 as Annexure R3/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.

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

9.                     It is not disputed that tubewell connection bearing NO. RT-0826 was released by the OP No.1 and 2 Nigam in favour of complainant which is duly evident from the photocopy of bill (Annexure C-1).

10.                   The only grievance of the complainant is that on the instruction of the OP No.1 and 2 Nigam, he paid Rs.1,30,000/- on account of cost of transformer, electricity wire, span cost, line charges and meter cost etc. to the OP No.3, but the OP No.3 did not deposit the amount of Rs.3100/- on account of meter charges with the OP No.1 and 2 Nigam and OP No.1 and 2 has wrongly and illegally added the same in the electricity bill dated 10.07.2012 (Annexure C-1) of the complainant which is liable to be quashed.

11.                   Learned counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 argued that as no amount on account of Rs.3100/- was deposited on account of meter charges by the complainant or his contractor i.e. OP No.3 so the OPs No.1 and 2 have rightly added the cost of meter in the impugned bill and the complainant is bound to pay the same and requested for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP No.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the OP No.3 argued that a false complaint has been filed against the OP No.3 who has no concern whatsoever with the matter in question. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP No.3.

12.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.3 as the OP No.3 has simply denied the allegations in his written statement whereas the complainant has specifically mentioned in his complaint that he had paid Rs.1,30,000/- including cost of meter to the OP No.3 who was contractor of the OP No.1 and 2. This facts has not been denied by the OP No.3 that neither he charged the Rs.3100/- on account of meter charges from the complainant nor he installed the transformer and other equipments being a contractor of the OP No.1 and 2. From the perusal of (Annexure C-1), it is duly evident that OPs Nigam has levied Rs.3100/- on account of meter charges under the head of sundry charges in the bill of the complainant. It is clear that OP No.3 contractor has not deposited the said amount with the OP No.1 and 2 which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice qua the complainant. It is not the case of OP No.3 that he has not charged Rs.1,30,000/- as stated by the complainant in his complaint. Even the OP No.3 did not bother to controvert the version of the complainant by filing cogent evidence. Hence, we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled to get relief.

13.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP No.3 to refund Rs.3100/- to the complainant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till its realization. Further the OP No.3 is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation as well as litigation expenses. Complaint qua the OP No.1 and 2 is hereby dismissed. 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 supplied to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Pronounced in open court: 23.06.2017                                  

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG),      

                                                                                     PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                                    YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI

 

 

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

                         MEMBER                                           MEMBER