BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.214/13.

Date of instt.: 20.09.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: .2015.

Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Krishan Lal, R/o Dogra Gate, Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Kaithal through its Sub Divisional Officer, ‘OP’ No.1, UHBVN, Kaithal.

2. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Kaithal through its Executive Engineer ‘OP’ (1) U.H.B.V.N., Kaithal.

3. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Kaithal through its Secretary, Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Dinesh Pathak, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. S.S.Punia, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection No.KC-11/5044.  It is alleged that there arose a fault in working of electricity meter in April, 2013 and as such, the complainant moved an application for removal of the fault and the concerned S.D.O. forwarded the same to J.E. Sh. Bijender Singh on 23.04.2012 to do the needful.  It is further alleged that as per instructions of the S.D.O., a report was sought from Sh. Bijender, J.E. regarding working of the electricity meter at the spot, who got the meter checked through a subordinate officer and the report was accordingly submitted on 24.04.2013.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt. .2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.