Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/133/2014

Rameswar Parshad S/o Basakhi Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sidharth Tyagi

09 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 133 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 7.3.2014.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 9.11.2015.

Rameswar Parshad aged 50 years son of Sh. Basakhi Ram r/o Vill. Kharwan, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              …Complainant.

 

                                    Versus

1. U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. Operation Sub Division Chhachhrauli through its SDO.   
2. Executive Engineer, UHBVN Ltd. Operation Division, Old DC Office, Yamuna Nagar.  
3. U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its Managing Director.   

 

                                                                                                               ..Opposite parties.  

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Sidharath Tyagi, Advocate, counsel for complainant. 

              Sh.  Zile Singh, Advocate, counsel for OPs.   

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Rameswar Parshad  has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (herein after referred as OPs) be directed to cancel the bills already sent in the name of complainant and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5500/-.   

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant had applied for his domestic electric connection under BPL Scheme and the department also completed all the formalities to provide electric connection to the complainant but due to the reasons best known to the OPs, the connection could not be released to him. The OPs have been sending the consumption bills to the complainant against connection No. Y33JH273754X and the photo copy of bills for the period from 14.7.2009 to 16.9.2013 for an amount of Rs. 9019/- wherein under column “previous consumption pattern “consumption of last six bills from November 2012 to September 2013 has been shown. The complainant did not deposit the charges against any of consumption bills due to the reason that when his connection has not been released then the question of paying consumption charges does not arise. The complainant approached to OP No.1 time and again in this connection but no action has been taken by the OPs to stop the consumption bills in the name of complainant so far and have committed grave deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi or any cause of action and on merit it has been mentioned that the connection of the complainant was ordered to be executed by the contractor and on the basis of said order contractor installed electricity meter but supply was not connected to the meter by the said contractor. So, the supply could not be provided to the complainant and the consumption charges shown in the bill will be waived off by the OPs. The connection of the complainant will be released on merit/ seniority and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Bill dated 12.10.2013 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of application dated 24.2.2012 made to SDO, UHBVNL, Chhachhrauli as Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs also tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Ashish Chopra, SDO (OP) Sub Divn. UHBVNL Chhachhrauli as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copy of letter Memo No. 1580 dated 17.6.2014 for checking the premises of complainant as Annexure R-1, Copy of consumption data as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs..

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

7.                     The only plea of the complainant is that complainant applied for electric connection under BPL scheme and the same has not been released to the complainant by the OPs but the OPs raised an electricity bill on 12.10.2013 bearing No. 6179 amounting to Rs. 9019/- in which an amount of Rs. 8671/- has been shown as arrear. Further in this bill (Annexure C-1) status of meter has been shown as “N” and bill has been prepared on average basis of 80 units as the OPs failed to provide/ release the electricity connection then how the OPs can issue electricity bill on average basis and requested to quash the impugned bill.

8.                     After going through the documents and arguments advanced by counsel for complainant, we are of the considered view that the impugned bill bearing No. 6179 dated 12.10.2013 has been wrongly issued to the complainant and the same is liable to be quashed. From the perusal of Annexure R-1 letter of SDO (OP) Sub Division, UHBVNL, Chhachhrauli written to Sh. Abhey Raj Singh JE-F vide memo No. 1580 dated 17.6.2014, it is evident that PVC not at site and supply not connected by the Contractor to the meter. Further from the perusal of Annexure R-2 Account Statement filed by OPs it is also clear that in the column of new reading word “N” has been mentioned and old reading has been shown as 01 and consumption of 80 units have been shown on average basis. Meaning thereby that department i.e. OP issuing false bills to the complainant from the office without visiting the premises of the complainant. Even the OPs has admitted in para No. 3 & 4 on merit of the written statement that consumption charges shown in the bill of the complainant will be waived off as the contractor has not connected the supply to the meter.

 9.                    After going through the above noted admission on the part of OPs that no electricity supply was connected to the meter of the complainant, hence we have no hesitation to waive off/quash the impugned bill bearing No. 6179 dated 12.10.2013.

10.                    Resultantly we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs not to charge the amount of Rs. 9019/- from the complainant which has been demanded vide bill dated12.10.2013.  Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced in open court. 9.11.2015.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                                MEMBER