Haryana

Karnal

EA/8/2017

Raj Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ranpat Chaudhary

18 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                      Execution No.08 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt.: 08.02.2017

                                                      Date of decision 18.07.2018

Raj Pal son of Shri Ram Chander resident of house no.300/9, Municipal Commttee Road, Taraori, Tehsil Nilokheri, Disrict Karnal.

…..Complainant/DH.

                                        Versus

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula thorugh its Managing Director.

2. Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban Division no.1, Taraori, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal.

                                                        ………… Opposite Parties/JDs.

                  Execution/s 27  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before:      Sh.Jagmal Singh……….President

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:      Complainant/DH in person.

                     Shri Virender Sachdeva Advocate for OPs/JDs.

 

ORDER:

                   The above mentioned exection petition has been filed by the complainant/DH on 8.2.2017 for the compliance of the order passed by this Forum on 16.08.2013.

                Upon notice, OPs/JDs appeared. The complainant admitted that amount of compensation awarded Rs.5000/- and the cost of litigation Rs.2000/- has been paid by the JD. According to the order dated 16.08.2013 the OPs were directed to adjust the amount paid by the complainant during period the meter remained defective on the basis of reading given by new meter installed on 6.1.2010 as per the rules of the Nigam. The learned counsel for complainant has produced the calculation done by the JDs/OPs. On the basis of said calculation, the learned counsel for complainant argued that the JDs has not paid the interest on the amount which remained excess with the OP. On perusal of order dated 16.08.2013 we found that no interest has been awarded on the said amount. So, the DH/complainant is not entited for any interest. The complainant also stated  that the OPs/JDs have not adjusted all the amounts but from the calculation produced by the complainant himself he is unable to explain that what amount was not adjusted. On the other hand counsel for OPs/JDs stated that entire amount has been adjusted in the presence of the complainant who was present in their office. The OPs admitted that the calculation produced by the complainant is correct and according to this calculation the amount paid by the complainant during the period the meter remained defective has been adjusted on the basis of reading given by the new meter. We are of the considered view that the amount has been adjusted by the OPs/JDs. In this way the order dated 16.08.2013 has been made complied with. So the present execution petition is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
Dated:18.07.2018

President

                                                                        DCDRF,  Karnal.         

                                        Member