Haryana

Ambala

CC/64/2013

PADAM KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

H.S GILL

30 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 64 of 2013

                                                          Date of Institution         : 25.03.2016

                                                          Date of decision   :  30.01.2017

 

1.       Padam Kumar S/o Sh. Sham Lal S/o Sh. Billa Ram, resident of village     Koolpur, Tehsil and Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

2.       Sukhdev S/o Sh. Jagmal S/o Sh. Dilla Ram, resident of village Koolpur, Tehsil and Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

……. Complainant.

 

1.       S.D.O, UHBVN Adhoya, Sub Divisional Barara, Distt. Ambala.

2.       XEN, UHBVN, Dhulkot Distt. Ambala.

3.       Chairman, UHBVNL, Panchkula.

 

….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

 

Present:       Sh. H.S. Gill, counsel for the complainants.

                   Sh. Saravjeet Singh, counsel Ops.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the father of the complainant was the consumer of Ops vide account No. AC-03-1045-M of a tube-well connection from the last 35 years and the said tube-well connection was installed in the agriculture land of late Sh. Dilla Ram which was situated in khasra No. 10//12(8-0). Further submitted that OP served a bill amounting to Rs. 16550/- dt. 29.02.2012 and the complainant paid the said bill of Rs. 16515/- on 09.03.2012 vide receipt No. 33-52-21. Further submitted that despite the payment of the bill to the Ops, Ops disconnected the connection of the tube-well forcibly without serving any notice to the complainants and the complainant  are facing hard time and big problems to irrigate their land from the day when their tub-well connect ion was illegal and wrongly disconnected by the Ops. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed written statement submitting that the complainants are not the consumers of the Ops as the electricity connection in question is not on the name of the complainant and as such there is no privity of contract between the OP and the complainants. Further submitted that the bills raised against the electricity connection in question were not being paid by the consumer so, the electricity connection was permanently disconnected vide permanent disconnection order i.e. PDCO dated 03.05.2010 which was effected on 29.10.2011 and on the date of PDCO i.e. 03.05.2010 a sum of Rs. 6680/- was outstanding against the above electricity connection as arrears of electricity bills.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-3 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP has also tendered affidavit as Annexure R-X alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 and close is evidence.

4.                We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the case file. It is clear from Annexure R-1 that the connection of the complainant was permanently disconnected vide PDCO No. 83 dated 03.05.2010 which was effected on 29.10.2011. It is not disputed that when the PDCO was effected a sum of Rs. 6680/- was outstanding against the Account No. 03-1045 which was shown in the name of Dilla Ram, Grandfather of the complainants and the above said amount has been demanded with interest from the consumer/Dilla Ram and same was deposited vide CCR No. 33/53/21 dated 09.03.2012. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 25.03.2013 after the period of one year and five months. The above said arrear has been deposited by the complainant without any protest and not claimed the above said amount in the complaint. No doubt the complainants have deposited the above said amount after the death of Dilla Ram but as per the version of the complainants, the originally Sh. Dilla Ram, grandfather was the owner of the tube-well connection and he died on 09.06.2009 and the complainants become the owner by registered Will dated 28.05.2009 but complainant failed to change the connection their own name on the basis of the above said Will. Hence, the complainant has no locus sandi to file the present complaint. It is primary duty of the complainants to change the tube-well connection for their own names. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. There is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, it is made clear the complainant is at liberty to approach the OP for reconnection of the tube-well or change the connection in their name after adopting due process as per the law.

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :    30.01.2017         

                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                               (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                          Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member