Haryana

Jind

CC/458/2011

Jogi Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh I.S. Shheokand

16 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 458 of 2011
   Date of Institution: 4.11.2011
   Date of final order: 16.8.2016

Jogi Ram s/o Daya Ram r/o village Uchana Kalan, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind. 

                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
UHBVNL through Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban Sub Division Uchana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind. 

                                                          …..Opposite party.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. I.S. Sheokand Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. H.S. Lather Adv. for opposite party. 
                   
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant is an agriculturist by profession  and having one electricity connection bearing account No. H-1298/AP which was installed at his tube-well and depositing the electricity bills from the very beginning at Flat rate worth Rs.350/- per month and nothing was outstanding against him. There was one another electricity connection in his name bearing account No. H-1269/AP which was also installed in his tube-well. The 
            Jogi Ram Vs. UHBVNL
                    …2…    
complainant has four sons namely Pala Ram, Nafe Singh, Sube Singh and Rohtash. Pala Ram residing with the complainant but the above three sons namely Nafe singh, Sube Singh and Rohtash are residing separately from the complainant and they were using the tube-well connection bearing account No. H-1269/AP since long and they are responsible to pay the electricity bills and thus the complainant and his son Pala ram had no concerned with the above said tube-well connection. Previously the complainant received an energy bill payable 21/25.10.2010 amounting to Rs.5,29,691/- in which there was defaulting amount of the another meter connection No. H-1269/AP was added illegally and unlawfully by the opposite parties. The complainant had no concern with the use of connection No. H-1269/AP nor he is liable and responsible to pay the said defaulting amount of said connection. The above said complainant’s sons namely Nafe Singh, Sube Singh and Rohtash are fully liable and responsible to pay the defaulting amount of bill of connection no. H-1269/AP. The complainant visited the office of opposite parties several times and requested to send the bills as per flat rate which comes to Rs.2450/- upto October, 2010 but the opposite party has disconnected the electricity tube-well connection bearing account No. H-1298AP. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite party be directed to restore the electricity connection of tube-well account No. H-1298/AP immediately and accept the bill at flat rate @ Rs.350/- per 

            Jogi Ram Vs. UHBVNL
                    …3…    
month as well as to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.  
2.    Upon notice, the opposite party has appeared and filed the written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum and the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is contended that  the complainant is consumer of electricity connection bearing  account No.1298/AP. An amount of Rs.5,29,691/- was charged from the complainant  but he has not deposited the same with the opposite party. As the complainant was having two electricity connections in his name i.e. connection no.1298/AP and 1269/AP hence the defaulting amount of Rs.5,29,691/- was adjusted into another account number of the complainant and complainant is responsible to pay the same.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for. 
3.    In  evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copies of electricity bill and receipts Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-5 and  copy of affidavit of complainant Ex. C-6  and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party has produced the affidavit of Sh. Dharambir Singh, SDO Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence.
4.     On the last date of hearing this Forum has observed that the amount of Rs.5,18,955/-  is due  of the another tube-well connection N0.1269  which was in the name of complainant. We have directed the official/officer of concerned department who was present in this 
            Jogi Ram Vs. UHBVNL
                    …4…    
Forum to clarify that when the above said amount was due against the complainant of account No.1269, on what date they have debited this amount in the account which is in the name of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint. Today official/officer has placed the copy of PDCO of connection No.H-1269/AP, the connection was disconnected and affected  on 31.10.2008. Similarly  connection No.1298/AP which is involved to this case was also disconnected as per the Disconnection Order dated 14.9.2010 effected on 14.10.2010 an amount of Rs.5,18,955/- has been added in the above said account vide bill dated 25.10.2010 Ex. C-2. An amount of Rs.4,41,360/- was due of account No.1269/AP and electricity connection was disconnected.  As per the affidavit Ex. C-6  filed by the complainant that he  has admitted that he having two connections No.1269/AP as well as 1298/AP and he mentioned in the affidavit that he has deposited the all bills of connection No.1298/AP which is being used by his son Pala Ram and another connection No.1269/AP has been used by his three sons but their three sons have not deposited the defaulting amount of electricity account No.1269/AP. So in view of the admission of the complainant that there are two connections in his name, the Nigam can credit the defaulting amount of any connection in another account of same consumer. It is proved on the file  the connection of defaulting amount   has been disconnected by the Nigam on 31.10.2008 and defaulting amount has been credited in the connection involved in this case has been credited  in the bill dated 25.10.2010  within two years . The  Nigam has rightly credited the 
            Jogi Ram Vs. UHBVNL
                    …5…    
above said amount in the account of the complainant because complainant was consumer of both the connections. However in the interest of justice and  as per  Sale Circular No.U-31/2003 dated 14.8.2003  whenever a permanent disconnection of  tube-well consumer  can make an application  for reconnection after payment of all outstanding charges, reconnection will be allowed.  So in view of the circular, The complainant is directed to deposit the all outstanding amount of both the  connection No. H-1298/AP and No.1279/AP along with the reconnection charges if any  to the Nigam, thereafter  Nigam  will restore the  tube-well connection  bearing account No. H-1298/AP as requested in the complaint within two months from date of orders. The complaint is disposed of accordingly  with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 16.8.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

                          Jogi Ram Vs. UHBVNL
                    
                   

Present:  Sh. I.S. Sheokand Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. H.S. Lather Adv. for opposite party. 

              Arguments heard. To come up on 16.8.2016 for orders. 
                                      President,
        Member              Member         DCDRF, Jind
                                  12.8.2016

Present:  Sh. I.S. Sheokand Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. H.S. Lather Adv. for opposite party. 

           Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is disposed of accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                       President,
        Member              Member         DCDRF, Jind
                                  16.8.2016