­­­Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 231.

                                                          Instituted on     : 18.05.2015.

                                                          Decided on       : 24.07.2017.

Ramesh Kumar Nandal Advocate R/o Rajendra Colony, Rothak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

S.D.O., O.P. Sub Division no.3, U.H.B.V.N.L., Rohtak.  

                                                          ……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Wazir Lal, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Pankaj Kaushik, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that opposite party submitted excess bill over and above consumption bill of Rs.10758/-. Thereupon the complainant filed a complaint bearing no.492/12 in the Hon’ble Forum. After hearing both the parties the Hon’ble Forum issued order on dated 07.09.2012 whereby 50% amount of the disputed bill was ordered to be deposited by the complainant and the opposite party was restrained to disconnect the supply of the complainant and further order not to charge any surcharge on the remaining amount and not to demand remaining 50% amount till decision of the complaint. It is averred that opposite party willfully violated the order passed by this Hon’ble Forum and demanded the remaining amount alongwith surcharge from the complainant in every bill issued by the opposite party. On receiving  every bill, the complainant had to get order to deposit to consumption bill as per order passed by this Forum. The said practice forced the complainant to file an application to initiate contempt proceedings against the opposite party and the opposite party made a request before the Hon’ble Forum that case may be dropped  subject to overhaul the disputed bill to the satisfaction of complainant which was accepted. But the current consumption bill issued by the opposite party whereby an amount of Rs.20000/- has been demanded illegally  and the opposite party is not entitled to charge any amount.  It is averred that opposite party may kindly be directed to accept the consumption bill mentioned in the current bill and remaining amount may kindly be ordered not to be demand from the complainant till the disposal of this claim and not to disconnect supply of complainant as the complainant is not defaulter in paying of consumption bill issued by the opposite party in every month request.  

2.                          On notice, opposite party appeared and filed its written statement submitting therein that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form because the complainant has already filed complaint bearing No.492/2012 in this Hon’ble Forum and the same was compromised between the parties on dated 20.02.2015 That the account of the said meter was overhauled through Audit Department and after the adjusting Rs.15539/- in the account of complainant the opposite party issue the consumption bill to the complainant.  As the complaint has already been decided, the complainant has no authority/right to file fresh complaint. On merits, it is submitted that the meter of the complainant was defective and said meter was overhauled  by the Audit Department. Rs.15539/- was adjusted and consumption bill was issued to the complainant. It is averred that the complainant is adamant not to deposit the consumption bill.  It is averred that complainant is legally bound to pay the consumption bill. There is no provision that once a case decided cannot be treated as part and parcel of the complaint. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.  .

3.                          Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                          Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 and has closed his evidence.

5.                          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          In the present case it is not disputed that earlier a complaint was filed by the complainant before this Forum and the same was decided on 20.02.2015 whereby opposite party agreed to issue amended bill to the complainant after overhauling the account. The contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that after overhauling the account of complainant the opposite party had issued bill of Rs.21893/-  whereby the consumption bill is only for Rs.808.62 and remaining amount of Rs.20000/- is illegal.  On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite party is that the meter of the complainant was overhauled by the Audit Department and Rs.15539/- was adjusted and consumption bill was issued to the complainant but the complainant is adamant not to deposit the consumption bill.

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that after overhauling the account of complainant, the opposite party has issued bill of Rs.22897/-on dated 28.04.2015  and the complainant had deposited 25% amount of the alleged bill vide order dated 21.05.2015 of this Forum and the remaining amount was stayed by this Forum. On the other hand, as per contention of complainant, opposite party is issuing bills after levying surcharge on the disputed amount and currently the opposite party has issued the bill of Rs.25097/- whereas the complainant is depositing the current consumption charges. As such the act of opposite party of levying surcharge on the stay amount is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.

8.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite party shall only demand the amount of disputed bill after deducting the 25% amount already deposited by the complainant at the time of filing the present complainant and shall also not levy any surcharge on the disputed bill. Hence the opposite party shall only charge the amount of basic arrear of Rs.22897/- less Rs.5725/-(deposited at the time of filing the complaint) i.e. Rs.17172/-(Rupees seventeen thousand one hundred seventy two only) without adding any surcharge, penalty etc. thereupon and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

9.                          Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.      File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

24.07.2017.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member.

                                                                        ………………………………..

                                                          Ved Pal, Member