Haryana

Karnal

146/2013

Subhash Chander S/o Shanti Sarup - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijle Vitran Nigam Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Akush Gupta

14 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                               Complaint No.146 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt. 18.03.2013

                                                               Date of decision: 14.06.2016

 

Subhash Chander son of Shri Shanti Sarup resident of house no.3, Duggal Colony, Karnal

                  

                                                                             ………….Complainant.       

 

                                                         Versus

 

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited. Sub-Division, City Near Bus Stand Karnal through its AEE (Operation)

.                                          

                                                                            ………..Opposite Party.

 

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

                  

 

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

                   Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present       Sh. Vishal Gupta Advocate for the Complainant.

                   Opposite party exparte.

 

ORDER:                    

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the averments that he was having electricity connection bearing account no.LC 36/1405. He was receiving the bills from the opposite party on actual consumption and paying the same regularly and nothing was due towards him. In the month of February, 2013 he received a notice vide memo no.2071 dated 12.02.2013, vide which a sum of Rs.36,673/- was demanded by the opposite party.  The demand raised by the opposite party in respect of the amount of Rs.36,673/- was illegal, null and void. No hearing opportunity was given to him before issuing the said notice. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss. The complainant has sought directions for opposite party to withdraw the notice dated 12.2.2013 and not to disconnect his electricity supply.  He also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-  and litigation expenses of Rs.5500/-.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite party. Opposite party put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum; that the complaint is an abuse of the process of law and has been filed just to harass the opposite party and that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the complaint as envisaged under section 145 of the Indian Electricity Act.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the meter of complainant remained defective and as such the account of the complainant was overhaulded by the Audit Party and an amount of Rs.36,673/- was found due and recoverable from the complainant in view of short fall of electricity consumption units charged in view of provisional billing during the period meter remained defective, vide sales circular no.U-29/2011 dated 7.9.2011 read with circular no.6/2007 dated 29.1.2007, vide half margin no.1221 and on the basis of said half margin the notice was issued to complainant which was quite legal and valid.  Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                When the case was at the stage of evidence of the opposite party, none put into appearance on behalf of opposite party, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated vide order dated 29.01.2016.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex. C2 to C7 have been tendered.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the documents placed on file carefully.

6.                 The complainant has raised dispute regarding the demand notice dated 12.2.2013 issued by the opposite party demanding an amount of Rs.36,673/- from him. As per the written statement of the opposite party the meter of the complainant remained defective, therefore, the account was overhauled by the Audit Party and an amount of Rs.36,673/- was found recoverable in view of shortfall of electricity consumption as per sales circular and the half margin of the Nigam.

7.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset that the opposite party in the written statement has not mentioned the period during which the meter of the complainant remained defective. The details of the report of the Audit Party regarding overhauling of the account of the complainant have not been given even in the demand notice, the copy of which is Ex.C1. It has not been clarified as to on which basis amount of Rs.36,673/- was demanded from the complainant. Complainant has produced the copy of electricity bills Ex.C2 to C6, according to which consumption was recorded in the meter and bills were issued accordingly. The complainant by way of his affidavit Ex.C1 has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. This evidence of the complainant has gone completely unrebutted and unchallenged, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the demand raised by the opposite party was not legally justified and the same amounted to deficiency in service.

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party not to effect recovery of the amount of Rs.36,673/- as per notice dated 12.02.2013 from the complainant and not to disconnect his electricity supply for effecting recovery of the said amount. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3300/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of 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: 14.6.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member