Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC 960/2010

Shankar Mistri S/o Sukoo Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

None

02 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No.  960  of 2010

                                                                                    Date of institution: 11.10.2010

                                                                                    Date of decision: 2.9.2015.

Shankar Mistri son of Shri Sukoo Singh resident of Shiv Shankar Nagar, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. U.H.B.V.N.ltd. City Sub Urban Sub Division, Jagadhri, through it S.D.O.
2. The Executive Officer/Executive Engineer, Operation Division, U.H.B.V.N.Ltd. Jagadhri.                  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  …Opposite parties   

           

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: None for complainant.

               Sh. Satish Sangwan, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Shankar Mistri has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by complainant, are that complainant is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No. JU-19-2856. As such there exists a relationship of consumer and supplier between the parties. It has been further mentioned that two false cases of the theft of electricity were made out against the complainant and in both the cases criminal complaints are also pending against him.  The complainant had also filed two complaints bearing No. 305 dated 31.3.2009 and complaint No. 15 dated 11.1.2010 against the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) and challenged a penalty amount of Rs. 50842/- and Rs. 28773/- which was imposed by the OPs. As per the orders of this Forum, the complainant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 14387/- out of Rs. 28,773/-  of the alleged theft and amount of Rs. 15421/- out of Rs. 30,842/- of the another alleged theft. In this way the complainant has deposited total amount of Rs. 29808/- out of the total alleged theft amount of Rs. 59615/- being the 50% of the alleged theft amount as per orders of this Forum dated 31.3.2009 and 11.1.2010.  It has been further mentioned that after making the abovesaid payment of the disputed amount, the complainant requested the OPs to accept the payment of current bills but the Ops have not accepted the same. Now the OPs have issued a bill of Rs. 72928/- to be paid by the complainant on 13.10.2010 without adjusting the payment already made by the complainant. The complainant is unable to understand how the OPs are claiming such a huge amount from the complainant. It has been further stated that if the amount of theft i.e. Rs. 59615/- is deducted from the latest bill amount payable on 13.10.2010, the pending bills comes to Rs. 13313/- but the OPs are demanding an amount of Rs. 16141/- from the complainant. The complainant has requested the OPs so many times to accept 50% of the said disputed amount of Rs. 16141/- but the OPs are adamant and are threatening to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant and are also threatening to recover the disputed amount from the complainant and lastly prayed that OPs be directed not to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant and to correct the bill No. 1472 dated 26.9.2010 and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious, complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands, no cause of action in favour of complainant, complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct and on merit it has been stated that complainant is defaulter of the OPs since October 2007 till August 2010 and has deposited only a sum of Rs. 2500/- against the consumption charges. A sum of Rs. 18236/- as current charges up to August 2010 has been outstanding against the complainant. It has been further stated that complainant was duly informed about the amount outstanding against him and the detail of the same was also given to the complainant and lastly prayed that a correct bill has been sent to the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.

4.                     This complaint was filed on 11.10.2010 and was fixed for evidence of complainant for Ist time on 2.2.2011 but the complainant till today i.e. 2.9.2015 failed to file any evidence in support of his complaint despite numberless opportunities availed by him. Even on the last date i.e. 24.7.2015 a cost of Rs. 100/- was also imposed and case was adjourned for today i.e. 2.9.2015 for filing evidence of complainant but today neither the complainant deposited the cost of Rs. 100/- nor appeared. Ultimately, evidence of the complainant is hereby closed by court order. . However, at the time of filing of complaint, complainant filed his affidavit and documents such as Photo copy of Bill No. 1472 dated 26.9.2010 Annexure C-1, Photo copy of bill payable by 29.1.2010 regarding amount of Rs. 30842/- of theft case Annexure C-2, Photo copy of another bill payable by 27.1.2010  regarding amount of Rs. 28773/- of theft case  as Annexure C-3, and also filed a receipt ot Rs. 10,000/- alongwith copy of ledger with the complaint in support of his complaint.

 5.                    On the other hand, counsel for the OPs filed an affidavit of Sh. S.L.Goyal, SDO, UHBVNL, as Annexure RA and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is admitted case of the complainant that two cases of theft of electricity were lodged by the OPs and penalty of Rs. 28773/- vide memo No. 2324 dated 30.11.2009 and Rs. 30842/- plus Rs. 20,000/- as compounding fees vide memo No. 280-81 dated 21.2.2009 was imposed upon the complainant which is evident from the case file of CC No. 15 of 2010 decided on 23.7.2013 and consumer complaint No. 305 of 2009 decided on 12.7.2013. It is also admitted case of the complainant that complainant has deposited only 50% of the amount as per order of this Forum. It is also an admitted fact that complaint No.15 of 2010 and Complaint No.305 of 2009 were ultimately dismissed by this Forum in view of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012 titled as U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another Versus Anis Ahmad decided on 1.7.2013. As per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Consumer Forums have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the such matters. Learned counsel for the OPs argued that both the complaints bearing No. 305 of 2009 and 15/2010 filed by the complainant have been ultimately dismissed. Hence, the complainant is liable to make the payment of the entire amount levied against him and further argued that as per account statement of the complainant, an amount of Rs. 18236/- is pending as current consumption electricity charges. The complainant has only made payment of Rs. 2500/- w.e.f. October 2007 to August 2010 against the consumption charges. Lastly argued that a correct bill mentioning Rs. 72928/- has been issued to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8.                     The complainant has failed to file any evidence to controvert the version of the OPs and it is also evident from the above noted facts that his two complaints had already been dismissed by this Forum. From the perusal of record available on this file, prima facie it appears that amount involved in this complaint is also related to the theft cases which have already been dismissed by this Forum. So, neither any illegality nor any deficiency in service is proved on the part of OPs and present complaint deserves dismissal being devoid of merit. Accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. 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. 2.9.2015.

 

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER