BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                           Complaint No.860-A of 2011

                                                           Date of Instt. 22.12.2011

                                                           Date of decision: 12.02.2015

Ramesh Chaudhary Advocate son of Shri Gaje Singh , resident of House No. 64, Sec.32, Global Spaces, Karnal.

                                                                     ……..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Though its SDO [OP] UHBVN Sub Division No.2, Gharuanda, Distt. Karnal 

                                                                   …..Opposite Party..

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

Before            Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                     Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma ……Member.

Argued by:-  Sh.R.S.Mann Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.D.S.Mann Advocate for the OP.        

 ORDER

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegation that there is a electricity tubewell connection in the name of Shri Gaje Singh father of the complainant, who has since died. It has been alleged that a transformer of 25KVA was installed on the said tubewell and the same has been stolen during the night intervening 28/29-9-2010 and an FIR was got lodged in that respect on 14.10.2010. The tubewell of the complainant remained out of order since 29.9.2010 to July, 2011 as the new transformer was installed in the month of July, 2011. It has been further alleged that now the OP has demanded the bill from 29.9.2010 to July, 2010 of the period during which the tubewell of the complainant was not in operation for want of electricity energy.   The OP has issued the bill payable by 22/23-11-2011 amounting to Rs.17177/-  out of which the complainant has deposited Rs.10000/- and the amount of  Rs.7177/- has been added in the next bill which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint and has prayed that the OP be directed not to charge the bill for the period during which the  tubewell of the complainant remained out of order  from the complainant and has also sought compensation for the harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. He has also  tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint alongwith some other documents.

2.                On notice the OP appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections that the complainant was not consumer qua the OP; that the complaint was not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and that the complainant has no cause of action for filing the present complaint.

                   On merits, issuance of the tubewell connection in the name of Gaje Singh, installation of the transformer, its theft and lodging of the FIR has not been denied by the OPs. It was contended that M/s Allied Engineer’s works has to install the transformer but the complainant failed to supply the copy of the FIR to the said company which caused delay if any in the  installation of the transformer. The tubewell of the complainant has been running from a 100 KVA transformer during the period the transformer of the tubewell of the complainant was not installed and as  such the consumption bill for the electricity consumption was rightly demanded from the complainant. Thus, it was alleged 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.                 Therefore, 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 on the allegations that on the intervening night of 28/29-09-2010 transformer of the complainant was stolen and the FIR was lodged in Police Station, Gharaunda  on 14.10.2010 and the matter was also brought to the notice of the OP and on account of theft of transformer, the tubewell of the complainant remained out of operation since 29.9.2010 to July, 2011 i.e.   till the installation of the transformer but the OP has included a sum of Rs.17177/- in the bill in an illegal manner and thus the amount charged during the period during which the transformer was not installed be ordered to be deducted from the said bill.

                    However, as per contention of the OP the intimation regarding the theft of the transformer was received by the OP on 22.3.2011 and there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP because the tubewell of the complainant continued to run from 100 KVA transformer.

5.                 However, after going through the circumstances of the case, it is evident that theft of the transformer of the complainant, who is son of Gaje Singh in whose name the said connection was running, took place on 28.9.2010. The OP has replaced the transformer in the month of July, 2011. Therefore, it is evident that no transformer was installed w.e.f. 28.9.2010 to July, 2011. Therefore, charging of amount for the said period i.e. 28.9.2010 to July, 2011 amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP and thus we direct the OP to adjust the amount alongwith surcharge which has been included in the bill for the period from 28.9.2010 to July, 2011.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.2200/- towards legal fee and litigation expenses. 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

12.2.2015                                                   (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                   President,

District Consumer Disputes  

Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Subhash Chander Sharma)

                             Member

                   Ramesh Chaudhary Versus  UHBVNL

Argued by:-  Sh.R.S.Mandhan Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.D.S.Mann Advocate for the OP. 

                   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

12.2.2015                                                   (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                   President,

District Consumer Disputes  

Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Subhash Chander Sharma)

                             Member