View 1550 Cases Against Uhbvnl
VIJAY KUMAR filed a consumer case on 02 Sep 2016 against UHBVNL in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/446/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 28 Sep 2016.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No : 446 of 2016
Date of Institution: 19.05.2016
Date of Decision : 02.09.2016
Vijay Kumar s/o Sh. Bhim Singh, Resident of Village Ukhalchana, Tehsil and District Jhajjar.
Appellant-Complainant
Versus
Sub Divisional Officer (OP) Sub Urban Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Jhajjar for Superintending Engineer (O.P.) Circle Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Jhajjar.
Respondent-Opposite Party
CORAM: Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
Present: Shri Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate for appellant.
Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for respondent.
O R D E R
B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Complainant is in appeal against the order dated April 18th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by him was dismissed.
2. Vijay Kumar-complainant/appellant, filed complaint averring that he was user of electric tubewell connection bearing account No.BU02-014 installed in the name of his father Bhim Singh-since deceased and was paying the bills regularly. Bhim Singh applied for tubewell connection by depositing Rs.20,000/- besides the installation expenses or Rs.28,000/- with Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘UHBVNL’)-Opposite Party/respondent. He also deposited Rs.17,350/- on 09.11.2011 towards the expenses of transformer. Thereafter, the UHBVNL raised demand of Rs.60,900/- vide Demand Notice bearing memo No.2826 dated 02.09.2013 (Exhibit R-4). The applicant-Bhim Singh died on 09.09.2013. The complainant being the beneficiary and legal representative of the deceased filed complaint challenging the impugned demand vide notice Exhibit R-4.
3. The UHBVNL-Opposite Party, in its written version stated that the amount of Rs.20,000/- was deposited as consent money/non-refundable security and Rs.28,000/- as cost of 4 spans. Service Connection Order (Exhibit R-8) was issued. In the meanwhile, the UHBVNL issued Sales Circular No.U-10/2011 dated May 16th, 2011 (Annexure-A) whereby the consumers desirous of seeking tubewell connections were given options listed below:-
“a) The old system of four or more connections per transformer, where the consumer pays Rs.20,000/- and Rs.7,000/- per span;
b) Three connections per transformer where the consumer pays Rs 30,000/- and Rs 7,000/- per span and
c) Single connection per transformer where the consumer meets the full cost of the transformer, in addition to the cost of spans.”
3. The applicant opted option (C). As per the said Sales Circular, the applicant was required to pay the total amount of Rs.1,26,250/- vide Calculation Exhibit R-6. Out of the said amount, the applicant-consumer had paid Rs.48,000/- (Rs.20,000+28,000) and balance amount of Rs.78,250/- was required to be paid. However, due to the error on the part of the officials of the UHBVNL, a sum of Rs.17,350/- was got deposited from the applicant vide Demand Notice Exhibit R-7 and connection was released. Therefore, the balance amount of Rs.60,900/- (Rs.78,250-17,350/-) was demanded from the consumer vide memo No.2381 dated 18.06.2013 (Exhibit R-5) and reminder Exhibit R-4. Thus, the demand of Rs.60,900/- from the consumer by the UHBVNL cannot be termed as deficiency in service.
4. In view of the above, the order under appeal requires no interference. Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Announced: 02.09.2016 | Urvashi Agnihotri Member | B.M. Bedi Judicial Member |
CL
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.