Haryana

Karnal

226/2010

Dharampal S/o Puran Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Akash Gupta

19 Nov 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                                Complaint No.  226 of 2010

                                                                Date of instt.31.03.2010                                                     

                                                 Date of decision:13.3.2015

 

Dharampal son of Sh.Puran Chand resident of shop No.13, Nai Anaj Mandi, Assandh District Karnal.                                                      ………..Complainant.

                             Versus

 

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.Sub Division, Assandh district Karnal through its SDO (OP).

                                                ……… Opposite Party.

 

                   Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.Subhash Goyal……. President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma….Member.

                  

 

 Present        Sh.Akash Gupta Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.G.S.Arora Advocate 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 is consumer qua the OP vide electricity connection bearing account No. AS-08-01815F and he has been paying the electricity dues regularly.  It has been further alleged that the complainant received a bill dated 10.09.2008 amounting to Rs.17, 882/- in which an amount of Rs.10, 000/- has been added. On enquiry it transpired that the OP has added the said alleged amount of Rs.10,000/-on account of development charges and on the request of the complainant the said alleged demand of Rs.10,000/- was deleted by the OP and the complainant deposited the amount of  Rs.7882/- with the OP. Thereafter a lapse of two years the OP issued the bill for Rs.14,080/- in which the alleged demand of Rs.10,000/- was also raised.  On 16.09.2008 an application was moved by the complainant to the Municipal Committee, Assandh seeking report regarding the development charges and vide receipt No.212/19 dated 25.01.2002, the Municipal Committee, Assandh had already received the development charges. It was alleged that the OP has not issued any notice before imposing the alleged demand. The complainant after receipt of the bill dated 12.3.2010 and requested the OP to withdraw the said illegal demand of Rs.10, 000/- but in vain which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP and has prayed that the OP be directed to withdraw the said illegal  demand of Rs.10,000/- and to pay compensation for the harassment caused to him. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint.

 

2.                On notice the OP appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complainant has got no loucs standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint was not legally maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and to try the present complaint.

 

                   On merits, it was contended that  as per sale circular No.U-52/2007, it is very much clear  about the levy of development charges “ As exemption from this levy shall be available to only the abadi deh/within the lal Dora of a revenue estate/ village. In this way the OP is entitled to charge the levy of Development charges according to the sales circular No.U=18/2008 and the sale circular No.U-52/2007. It was also contended that the department of Municipal Committee and OP are having two different identity and the development charges deposited by the complainant with the Municipal Committee Assandh doesnot relates to the development charges of the OP. It was thus contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

 

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

 

4.                Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the and hearing arguments from both the sides it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops on the allegations he received a bill dated 10.09.2008 amounting to Rs.17,882/- in which an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been added. On enquiry it transpired that the OP has added the said alleged amount of Rs.10,000/-on account of development charges and on the request of the complainant the said alleged demand of Rs.10,000/- was deleted by the OP and the complainant deposited the amount of  Rs.7882/- with the OP. Thereafter a lapse of two years the OP issued the bill for Rs.14,080/- in which the alleged demand of Rs.10,000/- was also raised.  On 16.09.2008 an application was moved by the complainant to the Municipal Committee, Assandh seeking report regarding the development charges and vide receipt No.212/19 dated 25.01.2002, the Municipal Committee, Assandh had already received the development charges

 

5.                However, as per the contention of the Ops as per sale circular No.U-52/2007, it is very much clear about the levy of development charges “ As exemption from this levy shall be available to only the abadi deh/within the lal Dora of a revenue estate/ village. In this way the OP is entitled to charge the levy of Development charges according to the sales circular No. U=18/2008 and the sale circular No.U-52/2007. It was also contended that the department of Municipal Committee and OP are having two different identity and the development charges deposited by the complainant with the Municipal Committee Assandh doesnot relates to the development charges of the OP.

 

6.                However vide Sales Circular No. U-22 of 2010, (Copy placed on the file) as per orders issued by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission, the charges of Service Connection were also withdrawn. The operative portion of the said Sales Circular NO.U-22/2010 is re-produced as below:

 

                                                 “In compliance with HERC order issued vides Memo No. HERC/Tariff(E)consumer/DCC1-1581-83 dated 24.8.2010 service connection charges issued vide SC No.U-1-0/2010 are hereby withdrawn and till such time only the approved charges i.e. service connection charges issued vide SC No.6/2001 be levied.”

 

 

    

   7.                Therefore, in views of the sales circular No.U-10/2010 and Sales Circular No.U-22/2010, the  demand of Rs.10,000/-on account of Development Charges added in the bill dated 12.3.2010 is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law and thus the OP is directed to withdraw the same within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 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: 13.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Present         Sh.Akash Gupta Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.G.S.Arora Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 13.3.2015

 

Announced
dated: 11.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

Present         Sh.Akash Gupta Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.G.S.Arora Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Remaining 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: 13.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.