Haryana

Kurukshetra

172/2016

Sunder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Goel

18 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint Case No.172 of 2016.

Date of instt: 14.06.2016. 

                                                                        Date of Decision: 18.12.2018.

 

Avtar Singh S/o Sh. Sunder Singh, resident of Ladwa Road, Pipli, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                        ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. U.H.B.V.N.L. through its Managing Director, Panchkula.
2. S.D.O. (Op) Sub Division, UHBVNL, Pipli, Kurukshetra. 

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Suresh Saini, Adv. for complainant.

 Sh. Prem Pal Beniwal, Adv. for OPs.

 

ORDER

                                                                         

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sunder Singh (since deceased) against U.H.B.V.N. Limited through its Managing Director and another, the opposite parties.

2.             It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of present complaint, the complainant Sunder Singh was died and an application for impleading the legal heir of complainant was moved by the son of complainant namely Avtar Singh on 19.12.2017.  The said application was allowed vide order dt. 12.01.2018 of this Forum and the name of Avtar Singh as complainant was inducted in the head-note of the complaint.

3.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that a tube well electricity connection bearing No.K22/P3-0021 which is in the name of his deceased grandfather Ram Singh and the father of complainant Sunder Singh (since deceased) was using the above said connection and has been making the payment of electricity charges, hence he is consumer qua Ops. The Officials of the Ops came at the farm of father of complainant for checking the meter and after checking every thing was found OK and when they were going they directed the father of complainant to supply 10 bottles of wine of standard quality but the father of complainant was not in a position to give the said demand of bottles and as such the officials of the Ops threatened in near future. The father of complainant has been making the payment of electricity charges regularly and nothing is due against the father of complainant.  Rs.167/- as consumption charges for the month w.e.f. 17.4.2011 to 17.5.2011 were paid but the father of complainant was shocked after seeing the bill w.e.f. 17.5.2011 to 19.6.2011 of Rs.1,62,237/- in which a sum of Rs.1,59,572/- as sundry charges have been shown. After that the father of complainant approached the Ops to withdraw the said illegal but they demanded Rs.50,000/- for clearance of said illegal bill.  According to Ops, the meter units consumed by the father of complainant in the month of April-May-541 billed amount Rs.267/- whereas the units consumed in the month of May-June is 1278 billed amount Rs.1,59,839/-. There is no cultivation in the said months and this amount is fully rainy month, so need of water for the agriculture. The father of complainant requested the Ops to withdraw the said but they did not pay any heed. The father of complainant had also filed a complaint earlier but the same has been dismissed in default on 10.3.2016 and now the complaint is again being filed.  The father of complainant came to know about the dismissal of complaint on 6.6.2016 when the officials of the Ops visited the premises of the father of complainant to disconnect the connection. The father of complainant had paid Rs.73,007/- i.e.45% of the disputed amount vide order dated 22.9.2011 of this Forum, though the father of complainant was not liable to pay anything to the Ops.  The demand of the Ops was illegal, null and void against the principal of natural justice and as such, the complainant is entitled to get recovered the said amount along with 18% interest. Hence, the present complaint was moved by the father of complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to withdraw the bill of Rs.1,62,237/-, to accept the regular consumption bills, to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, to refund the amount of Rs.73,007/- along with 18% interest and to pay Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses.

4.             OPs appeared and contested the complaint by way of filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that on the same cause of action the father of complainant has already filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act and the same has been dismissed on 10.3.2016, so the present complaint is not maintainable; that the father of complainant has concealed the true and material facts as such, he is not entitled for any relief; that the meter installed in the name of Ram Singh son of Sukha Singh i.e. grandfather of the complainant and on 6.10.2010, the staff of the Ops visited the premises in question and found that the meter installed falls in the category of AP whereas the same was used for NDS i.e. water of this is being used for making the tile. The checking report was prepared at the spot by Narender Pal, JE I, Vigilance Karnal along with other staff and copy of the same was supplied to the complainant and as per instructions of the Nigam a sum of Rs.1,59,572/- has been imposed as penalty upon the complainant and he is liable to pay the same with the Nigam.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were reiterated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.  

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.             On the other hand, the Ops have tendered into evidence the documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.             We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

8.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the connection in question is in the name of grandfather of complainant namely Ram Singh.  The father of complainant namely Sunder Singh has filed this complaint on 14.06.2016.  Before filing of the present complaint, the father of complainant had filed the complaint on 18.08.2011 which was dismissed in default on 10.03.2016.  This complaint was filed by his father on the same facts which was dismissed in default on 10.03.2016.  The counsel of complainant submitted one authority titled as Indian Machinery Company Vs. M/s. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. cited in 2016(2) CCC page 209 (SC) in which it is mentioned that the second complaint is maintainable if decided by the Forum.  The next contention of the counsel for complainant is that the opposite counsel had seen the bill of Rs.1,62,237/- for the month of 17.05.2011 to 17.06.2011, copy of bill is Ex.R2 in which it is clear that the sundry charges is Rs.1,59,572/-.  The father of complainant has deposited 45% of that amount i.e. Rs.73,007/- on 22.09.2011 as per direction of this Forum.  The counsel of complainant further contended that the bill is illegal and request for giving direction to the Ops to withdraw the bill of Rs.1,62,237/- and also request for compensation.

9.             On the other hand, the counsel of Ops contended that the second complaint is not maintainable.  The next contention of the counsel for Ops is that on 06.10.2010, the staff of Ops visited the premises in question and found that the meter installed in the premises of complainant falls in category AP, whereas the same was used for the purpose of NDS i.e. water of this is being used for making the tiles.  The checking report was prepared at the spot by Sh. Narender Pal, J.E., Vigilance, Karnal alongwith Sh. Des Raj, ALM and copy of same is Ex.R1.  The sundry charges is regarding use of water for the purpose of NDS.  Moreover, the counsel of Ops contended that the complainant has not paid any amount after that 45% which were deposited by the complainant on 22.09.2011 as per direction of this Forum.  The counsel of Ops also placed on record the abstract of ledger, Mark-RA, wherein the balance bill of father of complainant Ram Singh has been shown as Rs.2,59,694/- on 21.05.2018. 

10.            On perusal of citation submitted by the counsel of complainant, we have seen that the second complaint is maintainable.  From the perusal of record, it is clear that the counsel of complainant has not filed a civil suit to declare the bill in dispute as null and void or have not filed any document or any evidence which could prove that the father of complainant was not using the water for making the tiles or otherwise.  This shows the conduct of complainant.  So, it is clear that in the present case there is theft of water by the complainant that shows in the document Ex.R1.  Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops. 

11.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.                 A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:18.12.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.