STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No.09 of 2022
Date of Institution: 10.01.2022
Date of Decision: 17.02.2022
Fakir Chand son of Shri Phool Chand, R/o House No.841, Sector-12, Sonepat, Tehsil and District Sonepat.
….Appellant
Versus
1. S.D.O (OP), Sub Div., Model Town, UHBVN Ltd. Sector-14, Main Market, Sonepat.
2. The Executive Engineer (OP) City, Division UHBVN Ltd., Fazilpur, Sonepat.
3. The Superintending Engineer (S.E) OP Circle, UHBVN Ltd., old D.C Road, Sonepat.
4. The Chairman, CGRG/UHBVN Ltd., Kurukshetra.
5. The Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, HERC, Sector-4, Panchkula-134109.
……Respondents
CORAM: Mr.A S Narang, Judicial Member.
Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member.
Present:- Mr. Sikander Bakhsi, counsel for the appellant.
O R D E R
A.S. NARANG, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
(The matter has been heard through virtual hearing).
Delay of 52 days in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.
2. Mr. Fakir Chand (Appellant) has filed this appeal against the order dated 22.09.2021, whereby the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sonepat (DCDRC) has dismissed his complaint against the SDO (OP) Sub Div., Model Town, UHBVN Ltd. & others (Respondents).
3. Admittedly, the complainant was having electricity connection bearing Account No.9480040000 for his residence for the last many years. For the month of February, 2018, he was issued the bill for Rs.49,636/-. He had requested the respondents to get his meter checked. As per the complainant it was not done. As per complainant, respondent No.4 passed an order asking him to pay Rs.2,12,600/-. Against the order passed by respondent No.4, he had filed an appeal before respondent No.5, who vide order dated 19.11.2020 dismissed the same. During the pendency of appeal, his power supply was disconnected on 27.10.2020. He had to shift his family from Sonepat to his native village Tharu, Tehsil and District Sonepat. On these facts, he filed complaint before the DCDRC, Sonepat.
4. Respondents in the written reply alleged that a bill of Rs.2,12,600/- is pending against him. The electricity bill for the month of February, 2018 was issued to him for Rs.49,636/-. Complainant had applied for installation of check meter, which was done. When the readings of the consumption meter and check meter was compared, it was found that the consumption meter was giving correct reading. Respondents alleged that the complaint of the complainant is false. Respondents further alleged that the complaint be dismissed.
5. Appellant had filed on the record his affidavit (Ex.CW1/A) and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13.
6. On the other hand, respondents tendered in evidence affidavit of Mr. Saurabh, SDO (Ex.RW1/A) and documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-6.
7. After hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on the record, vide impugned order dated 22.09.2021, the DCDRC, Sonepat dismissed the complaint of complainant and held as under:-
“In our view, the complainant himself is liable for his own acts and deeds. In these circumstances, permanent disconnection order was rightly issued by the respondents on 29.10.2020 when the respondents found that the complainant is not paying the electricity bills and is using the electricity energy frequently. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent and the onus lies on the complainant to prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Merely alleging that wrong and illegal bill has been issued by the department is of no avail. On the other hand, the respondents have proved that the complainant is not paying the electricity bills since 14.08.2018 and that’s why, huge amount of Rs.2,12,600/- were due against the complainant. The respondents have also proved vide documents Annexure R-1 that the electricity meter of the complainant was working within permissible limits. So, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and the same deserves to be dismissed.”
8. Aggrieved by the order passed by the DCDRC, Soneapt, appellant has filed this appeal.
9. We have heard Mr. Sikander Bakshi, counsel for the appellant.
10. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Bakshi argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of the law. The department has issued a highly inflated bill. There was no electricity consumption by the appellant. However, the department has issued highly inflated bill. Accordingly, the impugned order be set-aside.
11. We have considered the contentions canvassed at the bar by Mr. Bakshi, counsel for the appellant. We have perused the impugned order. The DCDRC, Sonepat has held that there was no variation in the consumption as shown by the consumer meter and the check meter. Mr. Bakshi has failed to show how the appraisal of the material on the record by the DCDRC is wrong. We are of the considered view that there is no merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to record. A copy of this order be sent to the DCDRC, Sonepat as well as to the parties.
Pronounced in open court.
February 17th, 2022 Suresh Chander Kaushik A S Narang Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
R.K
