Haryana

Ambala

CC/47/2013

DILBAGH SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

14 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                                                                       Complaint Case No. :  47 of 2013

                                                             Date of Institution    :  11.03.2013

                                                            Date of Decision      :  14.10.2016

Dilbagh Sharma S/o Sh. Babu Ram R/o near Old Bus Stand, Ward No.13, Barouli Road, Naraingarh, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

 

                                                                                    ……Complainant.

 

                                                                                                                  Versus

1.         Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2.         Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., throught its S.D.O. Op. Sub Division, Naraingarh, District Ambala.

3.         Shri Krishna Rana Meter Reader C/o SDO Op. Sub Divisiion, UHBVNL, Naraingah, District Ambala.

4.         Shri Manjeet Singh, SDO Op. Sub Divn. UHBVNL Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala. 

……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:        SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Complainant in person with counsel

           Sh. Munish Bakshi, Adv.

                        Sh. C.M. Sehgal, Adv. counsel for Ops.

ORDER.

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that complainant having a domestic electricity connection bearing account no.NN-17/0214W-G with load of 2 KW which was extended to 5 KW in April 2009. Complainant has alleged he was shocked to receive the bill dated 21.01.2010 whereby meter of the complainant has been shown as defective  and  a bill of huge amount  i.e. Rs.2007 has been issued. It has been contended that electricity meter of the complainant was working properly till 09.03.2013 and on 02.04.2010, the reading was 5620 and on 04.04.2010 the reading was 5626 and on 07.04.2010 at morning, the same was 5636.  It has been alleged that Op no.4 send a legal notice to the complainant demanding Rs.78,984/- and  the notice was replied by  complainant through counsel and complainant shown  his readiness and willingness to  deposit the amount of actual consumption of energy  but the Op were adamant to receive the entire amount of Rs.78,984/-. It has been contended that after removing the electricity meter fom the premises of the complainant, he visited the office of Op and requested to receive the bill of current actual consumption as shown in the bill  but they were adamant to recover fictitious amount of Rs.88,883/- without explaining the actual consumption  although the complainant was ready  and will willing to ready to pay the consumption charges of 9842-5358=4484 units.  Complainant has submitted that   the cause of action arose to the complainant  firstly on 21.01.2010 when the bill of said date was received by complainant and thereafter time to time when the Op sent another bills.  Complainant submitted that earlier complaint filed on the same cause of action was dismissed in default  and   restoration application of the same was pending adjudication. It has been alleged that despite order dated 08.04.2010 of the Forum to receive the bill of actual consumption  but the Op with a view to harass the complainant intentionally sent wrong and illegal bill to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint.  

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and raised preliminary objection qua non-maintainability of complaint, and suppression of material facts. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant is having a domestic connection and the load was extended and due to the defect in the meter average bill was sent to the complainant. It has been urged that earlier complaint on the same ground had been dismissed in default and even the restoration application was also dismissed.  As such, contended that the second complaint is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C1 to C-32 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Ops  tendered affidavit of Sh. Ramesh Kumar LDC as Anenxure RX alongwith documents as Annexure R-1  and closed evidence on behalf of OP-Nigam.  

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very minutely. While arguing the case, counsel for OP has emphasized  that the second complaint is not maintainable before this Forum? So, first and foremost question arises before this Forum “whether the second complaint is maintainable when the first complaint has dismissed in default?”

                        It is not disputed that the complainant has filed an earlier complaint on 07.04.2010 in the Forum vide case no.110/2010 titled as  Dilbagh Sharma Vs. UHBVNL and the same was dismissed in default vide order dated 11.08.2011 and the complainant also filed restoration application  which was also dismissed vide order dated 06.09.2011.  Complainant also exhaust remedy of Revision Petition before Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.06.2013.  It is also not disputed that the present complaint has been filed on 11.03.2013 i.e. after two years of limitation period from first cause of action arose on 21.01.2010, however, complainant has not mentioned in the complaint qua the fate of restoration application moved by him before this Forum nor he disclosed that he has filed Revision Petition before Hon’ble State Commission. Complainant has also mentioned in para no.18 of the present complaint that cause of action arose to the complainant on 21.01.2010 when he received the bill and as per own admission of complainant cause of action firstly arose to him on 21.01.2010  as such, the present complaint was to be filed  by 20.01.2012 but the present complaint has been filed on 11.03.2013 i.e. after lapse of mandatory period of two years for filing a complaint. Even then, the complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay and without the said application this Forum is not in a position to entertain the present complaint which is already time barred. Counsel for complainant relief upon case laws delivered by Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh titled as Master Parteek Kumar Goyal Vs. The Rayat Educational & Research Trust & others CLT 2013 (4) Pg.181, M/s Sandeep Marbles Vs. Jagdev Singh CLT 2003(3) Pg. 28 and Hon’ble Uttranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun 2004(2) CLT Pg. 456. We have thoroughly gone through the case law but the same are not applicable in the present case.

                        In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the complaint has been filed by complainant beyond the prescribed period of two years from the date of cause of action under Consumer Protection Act.  Hence, we dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

                                                                                                     Sd/-

ANNOUNCED ON:  14.10.2016                                        (D.N. ARORA)

                           PRESIDENT                      

 

                                                                                                 Sd/-

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)   

             Member