Haryana

StateCommission

A/1208/2017

ANIL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

NEHA GUPTA

21 Aug 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No.1208 of 2017

Date of Institution:11.10.2017

                                                               Date of Decision: 21.08.2018

 

Anil Kumar S/o Late Sh.R.C.Shukla, R/o # 55/219, Satsang Bhawan, Baldev Nagar at present R/o # 2290, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City through his brother B.N.Shukla.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its Sub Divisional Officer, Model Town, Ambala City.

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:              Ms.Neha Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.B.D.Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 07.09.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (In short “District Forum”) vide which the complaint instituted by the complainant-appellant was dismissed.

2.      Briefly stated, the fact of the case are that the complainant-appellant-Anil Kumar was having electricity connection bearing account No.MT-45-2629 M (Old account No.B3-1649) at his residence.  He has been paying the bills regularly for the period from 15.12.2013 to 15.06.2016.  O.Ps. wrongly demanded bill of Rs.15352/- for  3100 units for the month of 15.12.2013 to 15.02.2014, whereas the actual consumption of the meter was about 275 units as shown in the bill.  He approached the OP to correct the exaggerated bill and to deduct the amount already paid, but, to no avail.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

2.      Notice being issued. Opposite parties (O.Ps.) contested the complaint, wherein all the averments taken in the complaint, were vehemently denied, refuted and dismissal of the same. While taking the preliminary objections it has been alleged complaint was not maintainable.

3.      On merits, it has been alleged that O.P. had sent the bills for the period of 15.02.2014 to 15.04.2014 and 15.04.2014 to 15.04.2016 for 278 and 238 units respectively as the premises of the complainant was found locked and officials of the Nigam could not record the reading. The bill for the period from 15.06.2014 to 15.08.2014 for 3100 units was sent as per last reading.  He did not pay the amount for the period from 15.02.2014 to 15.08.2014.  O.P. had rightly sent a bill for the period from 15.08.2014 to 15.10.2014 for 360 units but he deposited only Rs.1500/- as part payment on 20.11.2014.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      The argument have been advanced by Ms. Neha Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh.B.D.Bhatia learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records had been properly perused and examined.

6.      As a matter of fact, the basic and foremost dispute arisen between the parties as to whether the bill issued by respondent for a sum of Rs.15,352/- for the alleged period, when the premises remained locked, the appellant is liable to make the payment of the said bill?

7.      While addressing the arguments, it has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that  the appellant had already paid the disputed amount of Rs.15,352/-.  Inspite of making the payment, the officials of respondent had again been added the above-said amount while issuing the current bills.

8.      Contrary to it, it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondent that infact the appellant had not paid any amount qua the disputed bill of Rs.15,352/- and when the bill has not been paid, it has to be calculated in the current bill issued by the respondent from time to time and as such, the complaint has been rightly dismissed by the learned District Forum and the present appeal is also devoid of merits and be dismissed.

9.      In this backdrop, the basic question which requires adjudication by this commission is as to whether the present appellant has paid the disputed amount of the bill issued for a sum of Rs.15,352/-?  It has been pointedly asked by this Commission to the learned counsel for the appellant that he can produce any proof or receipts or any other document to establish the fact that present appellant had paid the entire amount of Rs.15,352/- to the respondent. However, the learned counsel for the appellant could not produce any receipt, documents to prove that disputed amount has actually been paid and in absence of any positive and cogent evidence, the learned District Forum had legally dismissed the complaint while passing a well reasoned order.  Findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Hence the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

August 21st, 2018                                                     Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                                                       Judicial Member                                                                                                                   Addl.Bench               

S.K.