Haryana

StateCommission

RP/18/2016

KULDEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

NEERAJ GUPTA

12 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No:    18 of 2016

Date of Institution    :    10.02.2016

Date of Decision      :    12.05.2016

 

Kuldeep Singh s/o Sh. Mange Ram, Resident of Village Kalayat, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.

                                      Petitioner/Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Sub Divisional Officer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Kalayat, District Kaithal.

2.      Executive Engineer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Kalayat, District Kaithal.

3.      Secretary, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Kaithal.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Neeraj Gupta, Advocate alongwith Kuldeep Singh-petitioner. 

                             Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate with Shri Balraj Singh, Junior Engineer, for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Kuldeep Singh-complainant, has filed the present revision petition against the order dated January 15^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘the District Forum’) vide which the application for grant of interim relief for restoration of electric connection was dismissed.

2.      The petitioner/complainant is a consumer of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited-Opposite Parties/respondents, having domestic electric connection bearing account No.PP11/1633-H. He received a bill dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure-A) of Rs.998/- which was paid on 11.12.2015. The respondents unauthorizedly disconnected the electric connection of the petitioner and removed the meter on 15.12.2015. Despite repeated requests of the petitioner, the connection was not restored. The petitioner filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also filed an application under Section 13 (3B) for grant of interim relief for restoration of the connection.

3.      The respondents filed reply. It was pleaded that Mange Ram-father of the petitioner also had connection No.PA-11/0383 at Khattar Mohalla, Kalayat, and the said connection was disconnected on account of non-payment of dues of arrears worth Rs.71,418/-. The petitioner has got the new connection by concealing of his father being defaulter. Another plea was raised that one Dhara Ram filed a Civil Suit against the petitioner and his father Mange Ram, which was decreed by the Civil Court. In the execution proceedings of the said decree, Dhara Ram took possession of the said premises where electric connection was installed, thereafter he applied for removal of the meter of the petitioner from the premises. It was stated that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought by him.

4.      The District Forum dismissed the application for interim relief observing that since the petitioner was not in possession of the premises where the connection was installed, therefore, he was not entitled for interim relief.

5.      The petitioner has placed on the file the bill dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure-A) for Rs.998/- issued in his name with respect to the connection No.PP11/1633-H and the amount was paid on 11.12.2015. The petitioner has also placed on the file copy of the sale-deed dated 02.05.2016 (Annexure-B) executed by Dhara Ram in favour of Sumitra Devi wife of Kuldeep Singh (petitioner). Physical possession was also handed over to the purchaser.

6.      Thus, undisputedly, the respondents have not raised any demand from the petitioner with respect to any amount that may be due from the father of the petitioner. The last bill issued on 26.11.2015 stands paid and there are no arrears towards the petitioner. The possession as on date is also with the petitioner. The complaint is still pending decision on merits. The electricity is not a luxury but a necessity. When no amount is due against the petitioner, he cannot be denied the right of enjoyment of electricity.

7.      Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to restore the connection of the petitioner within one week.  It is ordered accordingly. Resultantly, the revision petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the application is allowed.

8.      Nothing observed herein shall be taken as an expression on the merits of the case.

 

Announced: 12.05.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL