Haryana

Karnal

CC/556/2020

Sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mukesh Sharma

14 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 556 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.04.12.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:14.09.2023

 

Sunil Kumar son of Shri Vijay resident of house no.1694, village Kunjpura, District Karnal. Aadhar card no.6548 9210 5711.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

 

2. Sub Divisional Officer (OP), Sub Division, UHBVNL, Newal, District Karnal.

 

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

       

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik……Member 

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Mukesh Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Amit Munjal, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                     

          

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is having a D.S. Electricity connection bearing account no.9634302129 from the OPs. The complainant is paying the electricity charges regularly as per the consumption. The OPs without any prior notice disconnected the electricity supply of the complainant on 10.06.2020 in the absence of complainant illegally. Complainant met to OP no.2 and enquired the matter with the request to restore the electricity supply but OP no.2 declined the request of the complainant. Due to said act and conduct of OPs, complainant suffered mental pain, agony and harassment for which complainant is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/-as compensation and request for restoration of the electricity connection. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that earlier to connection of the complainant, there was already exist a connection of one Raghubir Singh son of Phulla Ram in the premises in question but complainant moved an application alongwith affidavit on behalf of said Raghubir Singh contending therein the complainant is using the electricity connection no.ND16/2618 from thirty years and now he does not require the same and want get disconnected that connection permanently. Accordingly, OPs disconnected the same, vide PDCO no.3993710484. Complainant again applied for new connection in his name in the premises and new connection was issued in the name of complainant. Upon the same, OP received the legal notice by Advocate Shri Madan Lal Bhola on behalf of his client Raghubir Singh contending therein that there is a civil suit is pending in between complainant and said Raghubir Singh titled Vijay Vs. Amraj before the court of Shri Harleen Pal Singh. Coming to know the facts that complainant received the connection in dispute after mis-guiding the department and on the basis of fraud, disconnected the same vide PDCO no.43/218 dated 10.06.2020. Even otherwise in normal circumstances, as per bye law of UHBVN there cannot be a reconnection after six month of disconnection. It is further pleaded that present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. Raghubir Singh and other litigation who have interest in property is necessary parties.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of electricity bill and closed the evidence on 05.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sandeep Kumar SDO Ex.OP1/A, copy of application dated 25.09.2018 regarding disconnection of connection permanently Ex.OP1, copy of report Ex.OP2, copy of affidavit of complainant regarding disconnection of connection Ex.OP3, copy of PDCO copy Ex.OP4, copy of service connection  order alongwith application form Ex.OP5, copy of legal notice dated 23.11.2019 Ex.OP6, copy of PDCO order Ex.OP7, copy of sale circular no.U-02/2016 Ex.OP8, copy of sale circular no.U-15/2005 Ex.OP9, copy of revised sales manual dated 05.06.2013 Ex.OP10 and closed the evidence on 20.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

 7.            Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is having a D.S. Electricity connection with the OPs. Complainant is paying the electricity charges regularly. The OPs without any prior notice disconnected the electricity supply of the complainant on 10.06.2020. Complainant approached the OPs and enquired the matter and also requested for restoration of the electricity supply but OP no.2 declined the request of the complainant. Due to this act and conduct of OPs complainant suffered a lot and prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that earlier the connection of complainant was exists in the name of one Raghubir in the premises in question but complainant moved an application alongwith affidavit on behalf of said Raghubir Singh contending therein that now he does not require the connection no. ND16/2618 and wants to get disconnected the same permanently. On the application of complainant, OPs disconnected the said connection. Complainant again applied for new connection in his name in the same premises and new connection was issued in the name of complainant. He further argued that OPs received a legal notice on behalf Raghubir Singh contending therein that there is a civil suit is pending in between complainant and said Raghubir Singh and after knowing the said facts, the connection of the complainant was disconnected as the complainant received the connection in dispute after mis-guiding the department. He further argued that as per bye law of UHBVN, electricity connection cannot be a reconnection after six month of their disconnection and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

10.           The connection of the complainant has been disconnected by the OPs on the application of complainant. The onus to prove its version was relied upon the OPs. To prove its version, OPs have placed on file application Ex.OP1 dated 25.09.2018 and affidavit of complainant Ex.OP3 in support of the said application. It is evident from the application Ex.OP1, complainant himself has made request to the OPs to disconnect the connection no.ND16/2618 and on the request of complainant, OPs disconnected the same, vide PDCO no.3993710484.

11.           Thereafter, complainant obtained the new connection in question after mis-guiding the department while a civil suit is pending in between complainant and said Raghubir Singh titled Vijay Vs. Amraj before the Civil Court at Karnal. To rebut the said plea, complainant has not placed on file any cogent and convincing evidence. Thus, it seems that the said plea taken by the OPs is true. Thus, in view of the above, the matter is subjudice.

12.           Furthermore, earlier the connection was in the name of one Raghubir Singh and complainant moved the application Ex.OP1 on behalf of said Raghubir Singh but complainant has not impleaded said Raghubir Singh as a party in the present complaint, which is a necessary party. No order can be passed at the back of the necessary party.

 13.          Thus, in view of the above the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:14.09.2023                                                                      

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                          Member                            Member