Haryana

Panchkula

CC/24/2016

AMAR SINGH SODHI. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITREAN NIGAM LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                         

Consumer Complaint No.	:	24 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	29.01.2016
Date of Decision	:	17.08.2016

 

Amar Singh Sodhi, aged about 75 years, S/o Late S.Charan Singh Sodhi, R/o House No.108, Sector-4, Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, C-6, Shakti Bhavan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Chairman/Managing Director.

2.       S.D.O., ‘OP’s/Divn-UHBVN, A-27, Sub-Urban, Industrial Area, Power Colony, Panchkula.

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

                             Mr.Y.P.Rana, Adv., for the Ops.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that earlier, he had let out the portion of Ground Floor and First Floor of his house to Vijay Kumar who did not make the payment of the rent due and electricity bills and water charges etc. For this the complainant had filed an eviction petition against Vijay Kumar-tenant which was allowed by the ld. Rent Controller, Panchkula. But the tenant-Vijay Kumar did not vacate the premises and the complainant filed an execution in the court of Ms.Jasleen Narag. Ld. Rent Controller, Panchkula. The premises of the complainant was got vacated through the agency of ld. Court. Thereafter, electricity bill dated 29.06.2015 was issued to the complainant by the Ops for the period from 25.04.2015 to 25.06.2015 for Rs.19,883/- for consumption of 2592 units and another bill dated 04.09.2015 was issued for Rs.49,755/- for the period from 25.06.2015 to 25.08.2015 which included arrears of Rs.20,261.70 which was followed by another bill dated 01.11.2015 for the period from 25.08.2015 to 25.10.2015 for Rs.85,987/- including Rs.51,220.14 as arrears of bill. The tenant of the complainant had left the premises in December, 2015 and the Ops kept the bills pending awaiting the tenant to leave the tenanted premises. The Ops have not made recovery from the tenant and now forcing the complainant to make the payment wrongly. The complainant wrote a letter dated 13.07.2015 to Ops that if he tenant was not making the payment of bills as such the supply be disconnected but no action was taken by the Ops. The complainant again wrote a letter dated 14.01.2016 to the Ops that no action was taken on his earlier letter dated 13.07.2015 and thus inaction of the Ops, the tenant had left the tenanted premises. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that an electricity bill of Rs.19,883/- was issued by the Ops for 2592 units which was paid by the complainant. It is submitted that after the month of July, 2015, the complainant has failed to make the payment of electricity bills. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.94,202/- was outstanding against the complainant and he is liable to make the payment of the outstanding amount and consumption bill. It is submitted that the dispute is related to the complainant and tenant is not related to the Ops. It is submitted that the Ops have right to recover the amount of outstanding amount and consumption bill from the consumer. It is submitted that the tenant was inducted by the complainant at his own premises. It is submitted that the complainant could recover the amount from the tenant and the Ops have no concern with the tenant. It is denied that the complainant was not liable to make the payment of bill. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. The complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the Ops has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith document Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the complainant appearing in person and learned counsel for the Ops and have perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. The complainant has come with the plea that he had let out his ground floor and first floor portion to one Vijay Kumar but he did not make the due rent, electricity bills and water charges etc. and regarding this he had filed an eviction petition against said Vijay Kumar which was allowed.  The premises of the rented portion got vacated through court. The grievance of the complainant is that said Vijay Kumar is liable to make the payment of electricity charges/arrears for the period when he was in possession of the rented portion as tenant but the Ops are bent upon to recover the electricity charges/arrears from him by issuing bills dated 16.07.2015, 21.09.2015 and 18.11.2015 (Annexure C3 to Annexure C5).
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has come with the plea that the complainant has failed to make the payment of electricity bills, therefore, an amount of Rs.94,202/- was outstanding against him and he is liable to make the payment qua electricity charges. It has been further argued the dispute is between the complainant and tenant, therefore, the Ops have right to recover the amount of outstanding amount and consumption bill from the consumer.
7. It is not disputed that the meter is in the name of the complainant and the complainant being the owner of the house has rented out the portions to said Vijay Kumar. It is also clear that the dispute was in between the tenant and the owner and the Ops have no role to play in it as it has come into picture lateron.  Moreso, it is admitted by the complainant that he had filed a petition for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent, electricity bills and water charges etc. which was allowed and he also got the possession of the house but the complainant has not placed on file any document/evidence regarding the verdict/findings of the court qua electricity bills/arrears. Once the matter has been put before the Rent Controller on the same cause of action, therefore, the present complaint before this Forum is not maintainable and it was for the complainant to file the proceedings before said court for further action but instead of approaching said court he has filed the present complaint on same cause of action. Moreover,  Rule 2 Order II of Code of Civil Procedure 1908  says that:

(1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.

(2) Relinquishment of part of claim- Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or internationally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.
 

            The complainant had filed eviction petition before the Rent Controller, therefore, it is clear that the electricity bills/arrears were in the knowledge of the complainant and he might have claimed the same in the said petition. But the complainant has not placed on file the copy of eviction petition filed before the Rent Controller.  

8. Hence, in view of above discussed factual as-well-as legal position, we are of the considered view that this complaint is not maintainable before this forum.  Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach at appropriate Court/forum  if he so advised and in that eventuality, the period of litigation before this Forum shall not be counted towards the period of limitation for approaching appropriate court/forum.    Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted  in terms of the  judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled “ Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industrial Institute  (1995) 3 SCC page 583. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

17.08.2016      S.P.ATTRI      ANITA KAPOOR       DHARAM PAL

                        MEMBER       MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          

                                                DHARAM PAL                                                                                         PRESIDENT