RAM MEHAR filed a consumer case on 17 Aug 2016 against UHBVNL in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/702/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 06 Oct 2016.
Haryana
StateCommission
A/702/2016
RAM MEHAR - Complainant(s)
Versus
UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)
TARUN GUPTA
17 Aug 2016
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Present: Mr.Tarun Gupta, Advocate counsel for appellant.
ORDER
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
Ram Mehar Singh, Appellant is in appeal against the Order dated 08.06.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Sonepat, whereby his complaint against UHBVN and Anr. has been dismissed as he failed to prove any deficiency in service in the supply or against the recovery of the electricity charges.
In brief, the complainant is consumer of the Respondents vide old connection No.KH11-0384 and new account No.SG24-3920 and he has been paying the electricity bills regularly. There being no arrears against him, the bill dated 11.08.2015 for the period from 22.05.2015 to 22.07.2015 amounting to Rs.27892/-, according to him was illegal. The electricity meter issued by OP No.2 had stopped working before 07.10.1998 due to some internal fault and the OPs asked the complainant to purchase a new meter and to get the same installed at his own risk and expense. The complainant purchased the new meter of Bentex company and deposited the same with the OPs alongwith testing and meter inspection fees i.e. Rs.30+50/- dated 07.10.1998. Therefore, the bill demanding Rs.27,892/- amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and for the redressal of this grievance, the complainant approached the District Forum.
According to the OPs, the amount of more than Rs.32,000/- was still due against the complainant. The OPs ordered for permanent disconnection on 31.12.2015, but when the employees of the OPs went to do the needful, the complainant has forcibly obstructed them from discharging their duties. Since, the matter was quite old pertaining to the year 1998, the complaint was not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. The learned District Forum agreeing with the stand taken by the OPs dismissed the complaint vide order dated 08.06.2016.
Against the impugned order dated 08.06.2016, the complainant has filed appeal before us reiterating his factual submissions and the grievances raised before the District Forum.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record. It is evident there from that infact the matter is more than 12 years old and the complainant was certainly in arrears of more than Rs.32,000/-. It is also in evidence that when the employees of the OPs went for per permanent disconnection at his premises, they met with forcible obstructions from discharging their duties. From the documentary evidence produced by the OPs, it is further evident that the earlier complaint filed by the complainant relating to the same grievance was dismissed by the District Forum on 18.06.2015 and the appeal filed by the complainant was also dismissed by this Commission on 21.04.2016. In view of this position, the complaint has rightly been dismissed by the learned District Forum and the present appeal filed by the complainant is also without any merit. Hence, the same is dismissed.
August, 17th, 2016 Urvashi Agnihotri R.K. Bishnoi
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
S.K.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.