Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/201/2015

Naresh Kumar S/o Ram Rekha Alias Ram Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sher Singh Panjeta

08 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 201 of 2015.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 10.06.2015.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 08.09.2016.

Naresh Kumar aged about 40 years son of Shri Ram Rakha alias Ram Parkash, resident of Camp Yamuna Nagar now at present Naresh Tea Stall Opposite M.R. Plywood Factory, Industrial Area, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          …Complainant.

 

                                    Versus

 

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.  
2. Assistant Executive Engineer-Cum- S.D.O., Sub Division, UHBVN, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar.   

 

                                                                                                               ..Respondents.    

 

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Sher Singh Panjetha, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Sh. Satish Sangwan, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Naresh Kumar  has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to receive the pending bills from the complainant and to restore the electricity connection of the complainant and further also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that an electricity connection bearing account No. Y42YA-200731X was installed in his Tea Stall shop situated opposite plywood factory, Industrial Area, Yamuna Nagar in the name of his father namely Ram Rakha. The father of the complainant had expired in January, 2006 and since then the complainant was using the electricity connection in question. The complainant was paying the electricity bills regularly but subsequently since the year 2012, he could not pay the electricity bills due to his bad financial condition and he was also fell ill and there were also so many other problems in his family. Due to which, ultimately in the year 2014, the electricity connection in question was permanently disconnected by the OPs due to non-payment of the bills and meter was also removed by the OPs. Now, the financial position of the complainant has improved a little bit and two months back complainant went to the office of OP No.2 and requested for receiving the pending bills and to restore the electricity connection but the staff of the OPs put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, opposite OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; complainant has concealed the true and material facts. The true facts are that the electricity connection bearing account No. Y42-200731X was released in the name of father of the complainant namely Ram Rakha with the sanctioned load of 2 KW. This connection was disconnected vide PDCO dated 08.07.2013 due to non-payment of the electricity bills. The PDCO in question was entered in the books vide entry No. CA104 page No.39 Item No.370 dated 28.09.2013. It has been further mentioned that the OPs have issued the bills from December 2011 to February 2014 but the complainant has totally failed to make the payment of the arrear amount and on merit controverted the plea taken by the complainant and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and document such as photo copy of bill for the period from 28.02.2013 to 28.04.2013 as Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.  

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs closed his evidence without tendering any evidence. However, during the course of argument, counsel for the OPs tendered the copy of ledger as Annexure R-1 and photo copy of PDCO as Annexure R-2.   

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

7.                     From the perusal of the copy of ledger Annexure R-1, it is clearly evident that the electricity connection in question has already been disconnected permanently vide PDCO No.12/40 dated 08.07.2013 due to non-payment of electricity bills since December 2011. This fact has also been admitted by the complainant himself in his complaint that he could not pay the electricity bills since 2012 due to his bad financial condition as well as several other problems in the family. Further, from the perusal of copy of bill (Annexure C-1), it is also evident that the connection in question was standing in the name of Ram Rakha father of the complainant who had expired in the month of January, 2006 as is admitted by the complainant in his complaint. As the electricity connection of the complainant has already been permanently disconnected in the month of July, 2013 and the present complaint has been filed in the month of June 2015 i.e. after a period of near about 2 years. So, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the complaint of the complainant. Moreover, the electricity connection cannot be restored in the name of deceased person. However, as the complainant has mentioned in his complaint that now he is ready to pay the entire bill which was standing in the name of his deceased father so he is at liberty to deposit the same with the Ops and request them to release the electricity connection in his own name.

8.                     Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 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.

Announced in open court. 08.09.2016.

 

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                         PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                         MEMBER