Haryana

Karnal

MA/4/2021

Satya Narain - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vishal Kundi

08 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        MA No.4 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.05.04.2021

                                                        Date of Decision: 08.01.2023

 

Satya Narain son of late Shri Surinder Nath, aged about 75 years, resident of 201-R, Model Town, Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its SDO (OP) Sub Urban Sub Division, UHBVNL, Karnal, District Karnal.

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Application for initiating the contempt of court proceeding against the respondent.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Suman Singh…..……Member

          

 Argued by: Applicant in person.

               Shri Yashbir Singh, counsel for the respondent.

 

                 (Vineet Kaushik, Member)

ORDER:   

              

                The applicant has filed the present application for initiating contempt of court proceedings against the respondent on the averments that Hon’ble Commission vide its order dated 15.01.2021 had directed the OP not to disconnect the electricity supply of the premises of the complainant/applicant and also stayed the recovery of wrongly calculated bill amount by the OP till filing of written version. The OP filed their written version on 23.02.2021 and corrected the bill amount for Rs.4,88,075/- to Rs.69,786/-. The respondent undertook not to disconnect the electricity supply in future. Even after deposit of sum of Rs.19,037/- by the complainant, the OP had not clarified in the written version to the effect that whether this amount has already been adjusted in the corrected electricity bill or whether it is yet to be adjusted.  Despite the order passed by this Commission, the respondent on 26.02.2021, disconnected the electricity supply of the premises of the applicant. The applicant has fully complied the direction of Hon’ble Commission and he deposited the complete outstanding amount of Rs.69786/- as demanded by the OP alongwith the current consumption charges from the month of December 2020 to February 2021 with the OP but inspite of having full respect for the law of the land. Hence, prayed for allowing the application.

2.             On notice, respondent appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction and locus standi. On merits, it is pleaded that this Hon’ble Commission ordered on dated 15.01.2021 that keeping in view the fact that electricity is a basic necessity and hence without going into the merits of the case, the OPs are directed not to disconnect the electricity connection of the premises of the complainant. However, outstanding amount is stayed till filing written version. OPs are also directed to issue subsequent bills as per consumption. The account of the complainant was overhauled on 25.01.2021 and found Rs.4,18,289/- adjustable and same advice was sent to the office. The respondent has sent the bill dated 26.02.2021 and 12.03.2021 to consumer but the complainant failed to pay the same timely. The consumer have not paying the current energy charges regularly after the last payment made by him of Rs.19037/- on 04.12.2018 as per office record. Even complainant received the manual corrected bill of Rs.69,786/- on 28.01.2021, the consumer lastly paid an amount of Rs.79000/- on 12.03.2021 as part payment.  The respondent always adjusted the amount to be possible and adjustable the account of consumer time to time even the consumer not paying the regular bills issued to him. The application for contempt is based on false and baseless grounds and prayed for dismissal of the application.

3.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully.

4.             Applicant, while reiterating the contents of the application, has vehemently submitted that this Hon’ble Commission vide its order dated 15.01.2021 had directed the OP not to disconnect the electricity supply of the premises of the complainant/applicant and also stayed the recovery of wrongly calculated bill amount by the OP till filing of written version. The OP filed their written version on 23.02.2021 and corrected the bill amount for Rs.4,88,075/- to Rs.69,786/-. Despite the order passed by this Commission, the respondent on 26.02.2021, disconnected the electricity supply of the premises of the applicant. Hence, there is violation of order passed by this Commission and prayed for allowing the application.

5.             Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the bill in question has been sent to the complainant after overhauling his account and that amount is regarding the actual consumption and no extra amount has been charged from him and as such the application of applicant is based upon false and baseless facts. The respondent has not disconnected the electricity connection of the premises of the applicant and no violation has been committed by the respondent and lastly prayed for dismissal of the application.

6.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

7.              This Commission has passed order dated 15.01.2021, the relevant para of the order is reproduced as under:-

“Keeping in view the fact that the electricity is a basic necessity and hence without going into the merits of the case, the OPs are directed not to disconnect the electricity connection of the premises of the complainant. However, outstanding amount is stayed till filing written version. OPs are also directed to issue subsequent bills to the complainant as per the consumption. The complainant shall remain bound to pay the subsequent bills to the OPs regularly.”

8.             As per the applicant/complainant, the respondent/OP disobeyed the order dated 15.01.2021 and disconnected the electricity connection of the premises of the complainant despite the direction issued by this Commission. The onus to prove the fact that the OP/respondent has disobeyed the order passed by this Commission upon but the applicant/complainant has miserably failed to prove his version by leading cogent and convincing evidence. There is nothing on the file that the OP had disconnected the electricity connection of the premises of the applicant/ complainant and disobeyed the stay order passed by this Commission.

9.             Furthermore, in the main complaint, no deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been proved and the same has been dismissed.     

10.           Thus, in view of the above, the present application is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be tagged with the main case file.

 

Announced

Dated: 08.01.2023                                                                  

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

              Member                        Member