Haryana

StateCommission

RP/56/2017

SUNIL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

ARTI PUSHKAR

30 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No:    56 of 2017

Date of Institution:        05.06.2017

Date of Decision :        30.08.2017

 

Sunil s/o Sh. Sunder Lal, Resident of House No.1648, Sector-15, Housing Board Colony, near Raju Dairy, Sonipat, Haryana.

 

                                      Petitioner-Complainant

Versus

1.      Sub Divisional Officer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Division, Model Town, Sonipat, Haryana.

2.      Executive Engineer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Division, Model Town, Sonipat, Haryana.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Ms. Arti Pushkar, Advocate for Petitioner.

                             Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for Respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated May 02^nd, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Execution Petition No.105 of 2016 arising out of the order dated August 04^th, 2014.

2.                Complaint bearing No.554 of 2012 titled “Sunil Kumar Versus S.D.O., UHBVNL Sonipat and another” was filed by Sunil Kumar-Complainant (petitioner herein) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act, 1986’) before the District Forum, Sonipat. The above mentioned complaint was decided by the District Forum, vide order dated January 16^th, 2014, the relevant part of which is reproduced as under:-

“……….we hereby direct the respondents not to charge the meter rent from the complainant from the period the existing self purchased electricity meter was provided by the complainant to the respondents. Further the respondents are directed to refund the amount of 1715 units wrongly charged from the complainant and the amount of 1715 units is directed to be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant. The respondents are further directed to issue the bills to the complainant as per actual consumption as per the sales circular of the Nigam. The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

The present complaint, thus, stands allowed.”

3.                Aggrieved with the order dated January 16^th, 2014, Sub Divisional Officer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) and another-Opposite Parties filed First Appeal No.325 of 2014 before this Commission. The appeal was disposed of by this Commission vide order dated August 04^th, 2014. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“4.     Aforesaid table shows that the appellants wrongly charged for 1715 units.  It is also not in dispute that consumer had paid the bill for the excess units of 1715.  In view of this, it is ordered that UHBVNL shall adjust the amount charged for 1715 units in the preceding electricity bills.  In case, any amount has already been adjusted qua these units, the same shall be set off.

5.      So far as, service charges which the appellants have purposed to recovered from the complainant is concerned, the same cannot be recovered because the meter was purchased by the consumer in view of instruction No.4.1 of the appellants.  Learned counsel for the appellants fairly conceded that appellants could not recover service charges in view of the aforesaid instruction. The compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the District Forum shall remain intact.

6.      With the above modification in the impugned order, this appeal is disposed of.”

4.                Thereafter, Execution Petition No.105 of 2016 was filed by the revisionist/complainant before the District Forum for implementation of the order passed by the District Forum, Sonipat as well as the State Commission.  The Opposite Parties-respondents filed objections. Vide order dated May 02^nd, 2017, the execution petition was dismissed as fully satisfied mentioning that the opposite parties have made compliance of the order of the District Forum. The opposite parties were also given direction to adjust the meter rent amount of Rs.1329/- in the next bill to be issued to the complainant.

5.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated May 02^nd, 2017, the revisionist-complainant has filed the present revision petition with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated May 02^nd, 2017; to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-  as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony; to pay an amount of Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses and to make compliance of the order dated August 04^th, 2014 passed by the State Commission.

6.                The petitioner has taken plea that compliance of the order dated August 04^th, 2014 passed by the State Commission has not been made and only an amount of Rs.5,000/- bas been adjusted. The meter rent as well as extra consumption of 1728 units shown, have not been adjusted. The petitioner has prayed that the revision petition be allowed.

7.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file.

8.                At the time of passing of the order dated May 02^nd, 2017, the District Forum has given findings that compliance of the order of the State Commission has been made properly. Learned District Forum in its order dated May 02^nd, 2017 has mentioned in detail the dates and entry numbers etc. in the copy of ledger account of the opposite parties (Annexure-B). We have also gone through the document (Annexure-B) and found that in compliance of the order of this Commission, an amount of Rs.3262/- was adjusted in the electricity bill prepared in the month of August, 2012.  Adjustment was made regarding an amount of Rs.5,000/- in the electricity bill prepared in the month of April, 2013 and adjustment of an amount of Rs.5,000/- was made in the electricity bill prepared in the month of December, 2016.  Regarding rent of the electricity meter amounting to Rs.1329/-, directions have already been given not to recover from the complainant.

9.                Apart from it, it is evident from Annexure-A that an adjustment has been made in favour of the complainant regarding 1728 units in the account of the complainant.  In this way, it is clear that compliance of the order passed by the District Forum dated May 02^nd, 2017 as well as the order dated August 04^th, 2014 passed by this Commission has been made properly. The order of dismissal of the execution petition as fully satisfied passed by the District Forum is valid and justified.  Thus, the findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed and the revision petition stands dismissed.

 

Announced: 30.08.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL