Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/109/2013

Sanjeev Suri S/o Jagdish Chander Suri - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Jaiswal

23 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No.  109 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 13.02.2013.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 23.12.2016

Sanjeev Suri aged about 40 years son of Sh. Jagdish Chander Suri, resident of House No. 1263, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. through its Chairman, Panchkula.
2. Sub Divisional Urban Manager, U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.
3. The Executive Engineer, U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.   

                                                                                                              …Respondents. 

 

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

Present: Sh. Atul Jaiswal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               None for respondents.    

 

ORDER

 

1.                      Complainant Sanjeev Suri has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.        

2.                Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No. Y32JU214086H installed at his house bearing No. 1263, Sector 17, HUDA, Jagadhri. He is paying the electricity bills regularly and had never defaulted in paying the bills. The respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) had illegally shown as arrear in the bill dated 26.11.2012 (Annexure C-1) and demanded Rs. 22716/- from the complainant without giving any notice and without explaining about the charges leveled against the complainant. The complainant had deposited Rs. 9800/- under protest against this bill vide cheque dated 11.12.2012, which has been credited to the UHBVN account. The OPs Nigam again issued a bill dated 29.01.2013 for a sum of Rs.28,624/-(Annex. C-2), in which the OPs had leveled Rs. 27797/- as arrear and other charges illegally. Upon this, complainant approached the OPs Nigam many times and requested the OPs Nigam to explain the abovesaid charges shown in the bills and also complained about non adjusting the amount of Rs. 9800/- deposited by him and requested to correct the said bill but all in vain. The OPs did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs Nigam to correct the disputed bills dated 26.11.2012 and 29.01.2013 and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint; complaint is liable to be dismissed as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts. The true facts are that electricity connection bearing account No. Y32JU214086H was released in the name of complainant and electricity bills were issued as per reading and actual consumption of the electricity for which consumer is liable to pay and the amount deposited by the complainant was very much legal and the same was not refundable as seeking by the complainant in the present complaint and the present complaint has been filed just to harass the OPs Nigam and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as photo copy of bill bearing No. 4684 dated 26.11.2012 as Annexure C-1, photo copy of bill bearing No. 4710 dated 29.01.2013 as Annexure C-2, receipt issued by PNB Bank regarding payment of Rs. 9800/- to the UHBVN dated 04.02.2013 as Annexure C-3 and photo copy of bank account statement as Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs failed to adduce any evidence despite so many opportunities being last with cost of Rs. 200/-, hence evidence of OPs Nigam was closed by court order dated 15.07.2016.  

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents attached with the file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs Nigam. From the perusal of electricity bill bearing No. 4684 dated 26.11.2012 (Annexure C-1), it is duly evident that an amount of Rs. 13467/- has been shown as sundry charges but no explanation has been disclosed in the written statement filed by the OPs Nigam that on what account this amount has been levied in the electricity bill dated 26.11.2012 by the OPs Nigam. We have gone through the written statement carefully and minutely but not a single iota of word has been mentioned in regard to the amount of Rs. 13,467/- levied in the impugned bill. A vague and false reply has been filed by taking the stand that electricity bills were issued to the complainant as per actual consumption but in support of this stand, OPs Nigam did not bother to file any documentary evidence. At the time of filing of written statement not a single document has been placed on file and after that the complaint was adjourned for filing evidence on behalf of the OPs so many times being last and with costs but despite that OPs Nigam did not bother to file any evidence. It seems that either the official of the Ops Nigam were not interested to contest the present complaint or they are having some other reasons best known to them due to which neither the OPs Nigam has filed proper written statement explaining all the contents of the complaint nor contested the complaint on merit except filing the written statement.

8.                     In these circumstances, we have no option except to quash the amount of Rs. 13467/- which was shown as sundry charges in the electricity bill bearing No. 4684 dated 26.11.2012 alongwith surcharge, if any.

9.                     Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Ops Nigam not to charge Rs. 13,467/- alongwith surcharge, if any, from the complainant and issue correct bill to him after adjustment of this amount. Further, the OPs Nigam is also directed to pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses to the complainant. However, The Higher Officers of the Nigam are directed to recover the amount from the defaulting officer/official of the OPs Nigam who has signed the written statement as well as affidavit without disclosing the true and detailed facts in the written statement and further did not bother to follow up the case properly before this Forum due to which the State Government has suffered the revenue loss. Order be complied within 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 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. 23.12.2016.

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                                                DCDRF,YAMUNANAGAR

 

 

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                                MEMBER