BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No.130 of 2011
Date of Instt. 04.03.2011
Date of decision: 24.02.2015
Dhanpat Singh son of Sh.Puran Chand r/o Kalheri tehsil Gharaunda District Karnal.
.
……..Complainant.
Vs.
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltc. City Sub Division, Gharaunda ,District Karnal through its Sub Divisional Officer (OP).
…..Opposite Party.
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.
Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma……Member.
.
Present:- Sh.V.S.Rana Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sanjeev KambojAdvocate for the OP
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Op u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP that he had cleared all the bills but the complainant has received electricity bill dated 29.1.2011 in the sum of Rs.40,782/- which included an amount of more than Rs.30,000/-as arrears and upon enquiry the complainant came to know that the said amount belonged to Mukesh son of the complainant who holds electricity connection bearing account NO. UG-15/1239 and that said Mukesh has been residing in a separate house and he has got separate ration card and voter card. The complainant requested the OP to withdraw the said illegal demand of disputed amount but in vain which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contents of the complaint alongwith some other documents.
2. On notice the OP appeared and filed its written statement raising the preliminary objections that that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint was not legally maintainable; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands ; that the present complaint was an abuse of the process of law and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and to try the present complaint.
On merits, it has been contended that the disputed amount has been included in the bill of the complainant and the said amount belonged to son of the complainant who was having connection no. UG-15-1239 and the s aid connection was made PDCO vide order dated 25.4.2007. It has also been contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.SDO concerned of the OP has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contentions made in the written statement.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
4. From the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the Op u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations he had cleared all the bills but the complainant has received electricity bill dated 29.1.2011 in the sum of Rs.40,782/- which included some arrears of electricity and upon enquiry the complainant came to know that the said amount belonged to Mukesh son of the complainant who holds electricity connection bearing account NO. UG-15/1239 despite the fact that said Mukesh has been residing in a separate house and he has got separate ration card and voter card.
On the aforesaid allegations the complainant has prayed for charging the amount as per actual consumption.
5. As per contention of the OP the disputed amount has been included in the bill of the complainant because the said amount belonged to son of the complainant who was having connection no. UG-15-1239 and the said connection was made PDCO vide order dated 25.4.2007.
Therefore, the disputed amount belongs to Sh.Mukesh who has got his own ration card and voter card and as such the same is recoverable from Mukesh and thus inclusion of the said amount in the bill of the complainant is not justifiable and as such the demand of the said amount from complainant tantamounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Therefore, OP is directed not to recover the said arrear of electricity bill of Mukesh from complainant.
6. However, it is ordered that the OP shall be entitled to recover the said disputed amount from Mukesh son of the complainant Dhanpat Singh as per law. The present complaint is accepted accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated: 24.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
Present:- Sh.V.S.Rana Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sanjeev Kamboj Advocate for the OP
Arguments heard. For orders the case is adjourned to 24.2.2015
Announced
dated: 23.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
Present:- Sh.V.S.Rana Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sanjeev Kamboj Advocate for the OP
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: 24.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
