Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/94/2011

Samshu Mohammad S/o Mehandi hassan - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Surinder Sangwan

20 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 94 of 2011.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 03.02.2011

                                                                                    Date of decision: 20.04.2016.

Samshu Mohammad aged about 49 years son of Sh. Mehandi Hassan Sultan, resident of Vill. Sultanpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. U.H.B.V.N. L. Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula, through its Chairman.
2. Sub Divisional Officer/Asstt. Executive Engineer, U.H.B.V.N.L. Sub Division Bilaspur, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar. 
3. Executive Engineer, U.H.B.V.N.L. Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.  

 

                                                                                              ...  Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Sharwan Kumar, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. P.K. Verma, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Samshu Mohammad has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to correct the electricity bill bearing No. 3153 dated 7.11.2010 by removing the amount of Rs. 35914/- shown as sundry charges and further to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No. JB-18/4396F-K and paying all the electricity bills regularly and never defaulted in making the payment thereof. In the month of November, 2010, the OPs issued an electricity bill bearing No. 3153 dated 7.11.2010 for the period of 26.8.2010 to 16.10.2010 in which an amount of Rs. 35914/- has been shown as sundry charges whereas the complainant made the payment of all the bills to the OPs and there is no amount outstanding but still the OPs showed such a huge amount as arrears without giving any detail thereof. The complainant immediately approached the OPs and requested them to correct the electricity bill but all in vain. The said act and conduct of the OPs constitute deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as the present complaint is not maintainable, no cause of action and on merit it is admitted that OPs issued an electricity bill bearing No. 3153 dated 7.11.2010 amounting to Rs. 35914/-. The true facts of the present case are that complainant never deposited a single penny in his account from January 2006 to November 2010. The OPs were issuing the bills to the complainant every month but the complainant never deposited any amount in his account, he always pretext the matter every time. At last, the Ops disconnected his connection due to non payment of bills. Copy of ledger is Annexure R-1. The complainant knows every true facts but he filed this complaint which is based on false and frivolous facts. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of bill bearing No. 3153 dated 7.11.2010 amounting to Rs. 35914/- as Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand OPs failed to adduce any evidence, hence their evidence was closed by court order on 16.03.2016.

6.                     We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents carefully and minutely placed on the file. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for opposite parties reiterated the averments made in reply and prayed for its dismissal.

7.                     The only plea of the complainant is that bill bearing No. 3153 dated 7.11.2010 for the period of 26.8.2010 to 16.10.2010 amounting to Rs. 35914/- has been wrongly issued to the complainant whereas he is paying all the electricity bills regularly. On the other hand, the version of the OPs is that complainant never paid a single penny against the electricity connection, whereas the electric bills were issued regularly since January 2006 to 7.11.2010 to the complainant.  

8.                     We have perused the account statement filed by OPs as Annexure R-1 at the time of filing of written statement carefully and minutely from which it is evident that since January 2006 to March, 2011 not a single penny has been deposited by the complainant against the electricity consumptions bearing account No. JB-18/4396F-K. Learned counsel for the complainant failed to show any cogent evidence from which we can consider that he has been paying the electricity bills regularly. The complainant has not deposited his electricity bills since January, 2006 to March, 2011. Hence, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. However, in the interest of justice, OPs are directed to charge the disputed amount in three (3) bimonthly bills with current energy bills from the complainant, if he so desire to pay the same if the electricity connection of the complainant has not been disconnected.  So, the present complaint stands disposed off accordingly. 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: 20.04.2016.

                                                (S.C.SHARMA )                       (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT