Sarla Devi W/o varinder Kumar filed a consumer case on 07 Nov 2016 against UHBVN Ltd. in the Yamunanagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/1307/2012 and the judgment uploaded on 18 Nov 2016.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR
Complaint No. 1307 of 2012.
Date of institution: 13.12.2012
Date of decision: 07.11.2016
Sarla Devi wife of Shri Varinder Kumar aged about 42 years, resident of Jammu Colony, Mamidi Road, Yamuna Nagar.
…Complainant.
Versus
…Respondents.
BEFORE: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.
SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. SS Panjeta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Rajender Kamboj, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER
1 The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to make the necessary correction in the bill in question by deleting wrong and illegal amount of Rs.22,170/- and to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.
2. Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No.Y41YY111467-N which is installed at the house of the complainant. The complainant was receiving the bills as per reading recorded by the meter in accordance with the consumption of the complainant and paying all the electricity bill regularly. There was nothing outstanding against the complainant. However, complainant received a bill No.1206 dated 07.10.2012 wherein a sum of Rs.22,170/- was added in the column of arrears, whereas no such amount was payable by the complainant. The units consumed in this bill having been shown as 236 and as such the bill in question has been wrongly issued to the complainant which is liable to be quashed. The complainant made so many requests to the OPs Nigam but all in vain. 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 and maintain the present complaint; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs; complainant has concealed the true and material facts . The true facts are that the electricity connection bearing No. YY-11/1467 was released in the name of complainant. The demand bill in question has been given to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption of the electricity energy, whereas the complainant remained failed to deposit the due amount, since several months and the defaulting amount has been adjusted in the said demand bill. Thereby the complainant is very much liable to pay the demand bill amount in question and the complaint is liable to be dismissed and on merit the contents of the complaint were controverted and plea in the preliminary objection was reiterated.
4. Complainant failed to file any evidence despite so many opportunities hence the evidence of the complainant was closed by Court order dated 02.03.2016, however, at the time of filing the complaint, complainant has placed on file her affidavit as Annexure CX and photocopy of Bills bearing No.1206 dated 07.10.2012 as Annexure 1 and other bills for the period of 06.12.2011 to 07.08.2012 as Annexures 2 to 6.
5. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Ravinder Mittal, SDO as Annexure RW/A and photo copy of affidavit of complainant as Annexure R1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
6. We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.
7. The only version of the complainant is that OPs Nigam has issued a wrong and illegal bill bearing No.1206 dated 07.10.2012 in which an amount of Rs.22170/- has been wrongly added being arrear and the same is liable to be quashed but the version of the complainant is not tenable as from the perusal of bills bearing No.1206 dated 07.10.2012 as Annexure 1, it is duly evident that amount Rs.22170/- has been added as arrear of the previous period/bills. We have also perused the other bills Annexure 2 to 6 for the period of 06.12.2011 to 07.08.2012 and from the perusal of these bills, it is duly evident that complainant was not paying the bill from the last 1-2 years. Further, learned counsel for complainant also failed to convince this Forum that in what manner the OPs Nigam is at fault. In the absence of any cogent evidence, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complaint has no merit.
8 Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order as to cost. Parties are left to bear to their own cost. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open court: 07.11.2016.
(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)
PRESIDENT
DCDRF Yamuna Nagar
(S.C.SHARMA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.