NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4323/2010

DARIYA ALIAS DARYAO SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SUBE SINGH

05 Jan 2011

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 4323 OF 2010
 
(Against the Order dated 15/07/2010 in Appeal No. 1079/2005 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. DARIYA ALIAS DARYAO SINGH
R/o. Village Kasanda, Tehsil, Gohana
Sonepat
Haryana
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. UHBVNL
Sub Division, U.H.B.V.N., Gohana
Sonepat
Haryana
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. SUBE SINGH
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 05 Jan 2011
ORDER

Petitioner is a consumer of electricity.  Admittedly, he was a defaulter and had to pay an amount of Rs.33,778/- towards electricity connection No. KSDA-3/2 upto February, 2002.  The State Government framed a scheme by which on deposit of 75% of the outstanding amount in one go, balance amount was to be waived off. 

-2-

Petitioner deposited the sum of Rs.8,960/- under the said scheme.  Petitioner filed the complaint alleging that he had paid the sum of Rs.8,960/- towards full and final settlement of the penalty amount under the scheme whereas according to the respondent, the amount deposited by the petitioner was part payment and remaining balance amount due against the complainant was not waived off.

          District Forum allowed the complaint, aggrieved against which the respondent filed the appeal before the State Commission. 

The State Commission by the impugned order has set aside the order of the District Forum and held that the petitioner was not covered under the scheme as he had not deposited 75% of the penalty amount.  The relevant Clause 2 of the Circular reads as under:

Those consumers who opt to clear the outstanding dues in one go up to 75% of their outstanding amount as on 30.4.2002 will be completely written off.  They will have to pay only the balance of the total bill amount (including Surcharge) as is lying as on 30.4.2002 provided this payments is made up to 15.5.2002.

         

 

-3-

A perusal of this Clause 2 referred to above clearly shows that the defaulter had to clear the outstanding dues in one go up to 75% which the petitioner, admittedly, did not do.  We find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  Dismissed.

 

 

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.