Haryana

Karnal

348/2013

Mai Ram S/o Naki Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijle Vitran Nigam Limited., Uttar Haryana Bijali Vitran Nigam ltd., Uttar Haryana Bij - Opp.Party(s)

Raj Kumar Sharma

07 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                                   Complaint No.348 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt.08.08.2013

                                                               Date of decision: 15.07.2015

 

Mai Ram s/o Sh.Neki Ram resident of village Dingar Majra tehsil Gharaunda District Karnal.

                                                          ………….Complainant.

 

                                                          Versus

 

1.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

2.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Ltd. Karnal  through its Executive Engineer, Karnal.

3.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Gharaunda District Karnal through its Sub Divisional Officer, (OP) Sub division, Gharaunda District  Karnal.                                           

                                                                   ………..Opposite Parties.

 

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present        Sh.Raj Kumar Sharma Advocate for the Complainant.

                   Sh.R.K.Sharma Advocate for the Ops.                

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he was consumer of the Opposite parties

( herein after referred to as the Ops) in respect of domestic electricity connection bearing account No. UG-15-1085.   He was using the said electricity connection for  domestic purposes and had been paying the electricity bills regularly and nothing was due towards him except bill for the month of March, 2013 for an amount of Rs.995/-  In the month of May, 2013 he received a bill for Rs.255/- plus Rs.995/- being bill of March, 2013 and Rs.28063/-  as sundry charges/allowances.  On receipt of the said bill, he  approached the OP No.3 and enquired about the demand of  Rs.28063/- but the OP No.3 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and even refused to accept the bill for the month of March. In July, 2013  also  he received the bill in respect of extra amount of  Rs.28065/-.  He again approached the OP No.3 but instead of satisfying him regarding the said extra amount, the Ops threatened to disconnect  the electricity supply if the amount was not deposited. The demand raised by the Ops in respect of the amount of Rs.28063/- is illegal, null and void, arbitrarily and not binding  upon  the complainant. The complainant has sought directions for Ops not to recover from him Rs.28063/-  as sundry charges/allowances  and  not to disconnect  his electricity supply.  He also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-  and litigation expenses of Rs.2200/-.

 

2.                 The Ops have filed written statement controverting the allegations of the complainant. Preliminary objections  have been raised that the complainant has got no loucs standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint  is not maintainable; that the complainant has not approached the court with clean hands; that the complaint is an abuse of the process of law; that the complainant has no cause of action  and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to  entertain and decide the present complaint as per provisions of Section 145 of the Electricity Act.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that electricity connection bearing account No.UG-15/572  was running in the name of Smt.Sudha Devi wife of Shri Mani Ram in the same  premises and the same was disconnected due to non payment of electricity bills. Therefore, electricity charges regarding that connection were credited in the account of the complainant as per instruction No.7.3 of the Electricity Sales Manual. The Ops have raised the demand from the complainant in accordance with the law and the complainant is bound to pay the said amount. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                In the evidence of the complainant, he  filed his affidavit Ex.C1 and produced documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5.

 

4.                On the other hand, the Ops in their evidence produced affidavit of Sh.Yashbir Singh, Sub Divisional Officer and the copy of instruction No.7.3 of the Electricity Sales Manual.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                The complainant has disputed the demand raised by the Ops for an amount of Rs.28063/- on account of sundry charges/allowances.  The Ops in their written statement have asserted that their demand is justified in accordance with instruction No.7.3 of the Electricity Sales Manual as another electricity connection bearing account No.UG-15/572 was running in the same premises in the name of Smt. Sudha Devi  wife of Shri Mani Ram and  same was disconnected due to non payment of electricity charges.

 

                   The Ops have not been able to produce any  documentary evidence to prove  that Sudha Devi wife of Mani Ram has any relation with the complainant or that electricity connection provided to her existed in the premises of the complainant. Mere allegation in the written statement cannot take the place of proof. The bald affidavit of Sh.Yashbir Singh, Sub Divisional Officer , regarding existence of the connection in the name of Sudha Devi wife of Mani Ram  in the premises of the complainant, cannot be taken to be the gospel truth.  At the time of arguments, the complainant filed another affidavit asserting that Sudha Devi wife of Mani Ram has no concern or relation with him and she neither resided nor obtained any electricity connection in his premises.  Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation in observing that the Ops have failed to prove that Sudha Devi had any electricity connection in the premises of the complainant. 

 

                   Even if, for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that Sudha Devi had obtained electricity connection in the premises of the complainant and the same was disconnected due to nonpayment of electricity bills, then also recovery of such amount cannot be effected from the complainant because the instruction No.7.3 of the Sales Manual relied upon by the Ops does not authorize the Ops to recover such defaulting amount from the complainant.

                             Therefore,  looking from any angle, the Ops had no right to recover the amount of bill in respect of the electricity  connection  in the name of Smt.Sudha Devi, from the complainant. Consequently, the demand of Rs.28063/- raised by the Ops from the complainant as sundry charges/allowances is not legally justified. Thus, raising illegal and unjustified demand from the complainant amounts to deficiency in services.

 

8.                        In view of the foregoing  discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops  to withdraw the demand of Rs.28063/- from the complainant and  also not to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant for want of recovery of the said amount of Rs.28063/-  We also direct the Ops to pay an amount of Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental harassment  suffered by him and also for the legal fee and litigation expenses. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:15.07.2015                                                                             

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Present         Sh.Raj Kumar Sharma Advocate for the Complainant.

                   Sh.R.K.Sharma Advocate for the Ops

 

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced
dated:15.07.2015                                                                             

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.