Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/55/2011

Bala Devi W/o Phool Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Subhash Chand

15 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No.  55 of 2011.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 24.01.2011

                                                                                    Date of decision: 15.11.2016

Bala Devi aged about 45 years wife of late Sh. Phool Singh, resident of village Kunjal Jattan, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.          

                                                                                                                …Complainant.

 

1. U.H.B.V.N.L. Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula, through its Chairman.
2. S.D.O., U.H.B.V.N.L. Sub Division, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
3. Executive Engineer, U.H.B.V.N.L. Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                              …Respondents. 

 

BEFORE          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh. Subhash Chand, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

                        Sh. Dharamvir Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents.    

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Bala Devi has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to issue correct bill after removing an amount of Rs. 15,451/- of connection bearing No. YY13/3948-A which is shown in the bill bearing No. 6767 and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that she is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No. YY13-4404-XY and paying the bills regularly. In the month of December, 2010, the Ops issued an electricity bill dated 08.12.2010 to the complainant in respect of her abovesaid electricity connection for a sum of Rs. 1498/- but surprisingly the OPs also demanded a sum of Rs. 15,451/- from the complainant in her abovesaid bill which amount is in respect of Account No. YY-13-3948-A, in the name of one Ramesh Kumar. The complainant visited the office of OPs so many times to correct the electricity bill so that the complainant can deposit the electricity charges of Rs. 1498/- but they did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by her own act and conduct. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum, hence the complaint of complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merit, it has been submitted that the two electricity connections were installed in the premises of the complainant as one connection was installed in the name of deceased husband of the complainant bearing No. YY-13- 3948 which was NDS and was installed in the shop situated in the same premises and another connection is installed in the name of complainant bearing account No. YY-13/4404 is DS and due to non-payment of bill amount of Rs. 15,451/- the NDS connection was disconnected and the said defaulting amount was transferred in the account bearing No. YY13/4404 of complainant. Both the connections as mentioned were installed in the same premises and were used jointly. So, the complainant is liable to pay the defaulting amount standing against the connection No. YY13-3948, which was in the name of deceased husband of the complainant as the complainant is the owner of the said premises.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of bill dated 08.12.2010 as annexure C-1, Photo copy of bill bearing No. 6767 of Rs. 15451/- as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of receipt of Rs. 1541/- as Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs, tendered into evidence affidavit of SDO Ravinder Mittal as Annexure RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs. 6.                       We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents attached with the file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant is having an electricity connection bearing account No. YY13-4404-XY. The only contention of the complainant is that OPs have demanded a sum of R. 15451/- vide Bill No. 7088 dated 08.12.2010 and thereafter demanded vide bill No. 6767 of one Ramesh Kumar Kunjal which is illegal and liable to be quashed as the complainant is paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against the complainant.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs hotly argued that two connections were installed in the premises of complainant as one connection was installed in the name of deceased husband of complainant bearing No. YY-13/3948, which was NDS and was installed in the shop situated in the same premises and another connection is installed in the name of complainant bearing account No. YY-13/4404 is DS and due to non payment of bill amount of Rs. 15,451/- the NDS connection was disconnected and the said defaulting amount was transferred in the account of complainant, hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as the OPs has totally failed to convince this Forum that how they have demanded the amount of Rs. 15451/- which is shown in the name of one Ramesh Kumar whereas the name of complainant’s husband was Sh. Phool Singh which is evident from Annexure C-1 Electricity Bill dated 08.12.2010 and in the array of complaint. Even, the learned counsel for the OPs has miserably failed to explain before this Forum that how and on what ground they have stated that the connection bearing account No. YY-13/3948 was installed in the name of deceased husband of complainant, hence we have no hesitation to mention here that this amount has been falsely imposed by the OPs against the complainant. Furthermore, the OPs Nigam has also not placed on file any documentary evidence to prove that the two connections were installed in the house of complainant one connection for NDS and another for DS. In the absence of any cogent evidence, we are unable to hold that the complainant was having two connections. No such evidence has been placed on file that Ramesh Kumar, in whose name the amount of Rs. 15451/- has been shown in Bill No. 6767 of 01/2011, was having any connection with the complainant. Further, even the OPs Nigam has not filed any circular vide which they can recover the defaulting amount of others from the complainant.  

10.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs not to charge the amount of Rs. 15451/- demanded vide bill No. 7088 dated 08.12.2010 on account of defaulting amount of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Kunjal and the same is hereby quashed alongwith surcharge etc.(If any). If, the amount has already been deposited, the same be adjusted in the future bill of the complainant. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs. 3000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. 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.

Dated: 15.11.2016.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                            (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                            MEMBER