Haryana

Karnal

CC/90/2016

Krishana Kumari W/o Tara Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uttari Haryana Bijali Vitran Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Dankher

19 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.90 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 21.03.2016

                                                         Date of decision:19.01.2018

 

Krishna Kumari aged 64 years wife of Shri Tara Chand, resident of House no.66, Sector-13, U.E. Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                           …….Complainant.   

                                        Versus

 

Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Division Model Town, Karnal, through Sub Divisional Officer (OP).

                                      

                                                                     …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

              Ms. Veena Rani……..Member

      Sh. Anil Sharma………Member

             

 

 Present  Shri R.K.Dhankar Advocate for complainant.

                Shri Manoj Sachdeva Advocate for OP.

               

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is consumer of OP and having an electric connection in her house bearing account no.LS-30-350-N (New account no.3052810000) since long. In the year 2004 the meter installed to the premises of the complainant had started jumping due to some technical defect. OP had replaced the said meter vide MCO no.73/1736 dated 20.2.2004. OPs sent a bill dated 10.7.2004 whereby OP demanded Rs.18000/- from complainant as sundry charges and threatened if she would not paid said amount then her electricity connection would be disconnected. Complainant requested the OP to correct the said bill, but OP did not pay any heed to his request. Then complainant filed a complaint no.39 of 2004 titled as Krishna Kumari Vs. UHBVNL before this Forum which was decided on 13.8.2007 in which OP was directed to overhaul the account of complainant and issue a fresh bill, but OP has not complied with the order. The complainant filed an execution application and same was finally disposed off vide order dated 1.5.2009. The OP even after making statement has not corrected the bill regarding surcharge fine etc. Then complainant filed another complaint no.604 of 2004 titled as Krishna Kumari Versus UHBVNL before this Forum which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.12.2014 on the basis of statement made by the counsel of complainant. The learned counsel of complainant had withdrawn the said complaint in view of sales circular no.U-42/2014. OP had not corrected the said bill, rather sent bills mentioning therein disputed amount has not complied with the instruction of Sales Circular no.U-42/2014, even has not mentioned the actual consumption of unit. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application for restoration of complaint no.604 and to decide the same on merits but the said application was dismissed. Then the complainant filed a first appeal no.61 of 2015 before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula which was finally disposed off vide order dated 24.12.2015 with the observation that the appeal is disposed off with liberty to file fresh complaint before the District Forum, on the same cause of action. After passing the order of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula OP again sent a bill dated 8.1.2016 in which OP has demanded Rs.1,01,313/- and OP again demanded arrears/outstanding dues by levelling surcharge, energy charges, cycling charges etc. and has not followed the order dated 13.8.2007 as well as sales circular no.U-42/2014, moreover also back out from their own statements. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction and maintainability. On merits, it has been submitted that OP has correctly issued the bill dated 8.1.2016 but it is denied that the OP has threatened the complainant to disconnect the electricity connection.  However, in case the bill issued by the OP is not paid within the stipulated period as provided in the bill the complainant has to face its consequences. It is not out of place to mention here that the bill dated 8.1.2016 was issued in view of the directions given by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula vide order dated 24.12.2015 and also as per sales circular no.U-42/2014. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.AW1/A and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 and closed the evidence on 12.4.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Virender Kumar SDO Ex.OW1/A and document Ex.O1 and closed the evidence on 11.12.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The complainant alleged that she was having electric connection at her residential house bearing account no. LS-30-350-N (New account no.3052810000). It is further alleged that in the year 2004 the meter installed at her premises had started jumping and the same was replaced by the OP vide MCO no. 73/1736 dated 20.2.2004. It is further alleged that the OP sent bill dated 10.7.2004 whereby demanded Rs.18,000/- as sundry charges and the complainant had filed a complaint no.39 of 2004 titled as Krishna Kumari Versus UHBVNL in this Forum which was decided vide order dated 13.8.2007 vide which it has been held as under:-

“We direct OPs to overhaul the account of complainant for the defective period after taking into consideration six month’s consumption recorded by the new meter installed at her premises. OPS shall serve fresh bill to the complainant on the  basis of directions given above within 15 days of the receipt of copy of this order. If any amount is found payable by the complainant then she shall deposit the same with OPs within further 15 days thereof failing which OP shall be at liberty to take action against the complainant as per law. OPs shall also pay Rs.1000/- to the complainant as compensation-cum-cost of litigation, which shall be reflected in the fresh bill to be issued to her as directed above.”

 

It is further alleged that OP had not issued fresh bill in pursuance of the above order so the complainant had filed an execution application and the same was finally disposed off vide order dated 1.5.2009 on the basis of the statements of the parties. It is further alleged that even after making the statement, the OP has not corrected the bill rather sent bill mentioning therein disputed amount, surcharge, fine and unnecessary charges and the complainant had filed another complaint no.604 of 2004 (wrongly mentioned which should be 2009) titled as Krishna Kumari Versus UHBVNL and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.12.2014 on the basis of statement of counsel of complainant. It is further alleged that the OP after making the statement has not corrected the said bill rather mentioned the disputed amount and has not complied with the instructions of sales circular no.U-42/2014 so the complainant has filed a misc. application for restoration of the complaint no.604 of 2004 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 23.1.2015. It is further alleged that thereafter the complainant filed first appeal no.61 of 2015 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, which was disposed off vide order dated 24.12.2015 with the observation that the appeal is disposed off with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint before the District Forum on the same cause of action. It is further alleged that after passing the said order by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, the OP again sent a bill dated 8.1.2016 for Rs.1,01,313/- in which the OP again demanded arrears/outstanding dues by leveling surcharge, energy charges, cycling charges etc. and has not followed the order dated 13.8.2007 as well as the circular no.U-42/2014 and back out from their own statement. The complainant has left with no other alternative except to file the present complaint.

7.             The OP contended that there is no dispute regarding the filing of complaints and appeal by the complainant. He further contended that an amount of Rs.3233/- was already adjusted on March, 2009 to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is further contended that the order dated 13.8.2007 passed by this Forum has already been complied with and this fact is clear from the statements of the parties dated 1.5.2009 wherein the OP stated that the bill of the complainant has been corrected and the complainant made a statement that her claim has been settled and present execution petition filed. It is further contended that the bill dated 8.1.2016 was issued as per consumption of the electricity by the complainant. It is further contended that the statement of account of the connection of the complainant from 7/14 to 7/17 has been placed on the file of this case.

8.             The allegations of the complainant regarding the compliance of the previous order dated 13.8.2007 passed by this Forum has no force because the complainant has produced on the file her statement as well as statement of counsel for OP/JD recorded on 1.5.2009 in execution petition. No doubt the same have not been tendered into evidence but the same can be taken into consideration as the same are relevant. The learned counsel for JD/OP got recorded in his statement on 1.5.2009 that the JD has corrected the bill of the complainant/DH. The complainant made the statement that the OP had settled her claim and withdraw the execution petition. From these statements it is very much clear that the order dated 13.8.2017 has been complied with fully and to the satisfaction of the complainant. Therefore, all the allegations of the complainant that the order dated 13.8.2017 has not been complied with are baseless and have no force of law. Now the complainant has challenged the bill dated 8.1.2016 stating that the OP has wrongly added the surcharge and other charges in the same. It is pertinent to mention here that while withdrawing the complaint no.604 mentioned above, the learned counsel for complainant has made a statement that the complainant had agreed to pay the pending bills between 5/2009 to 31.12.2014 alongwith surcharge. The complainant when admitted that she was ready to pay the surcharge, therefore, now she can say that the OP has wrongly added the surcharge. It is further pertinent to mention here that from the account statement Ex.O1 of the connection in question of complainant placed on the file by the OP, it is also clear that since 7/14 to 7/17 the complainant has paid only part payment. It is clear from this account statement that upto July, 2014 Rs.48127/- were due against the complainant and she had paid only Rs.1222/- on 29.9.2014 whereas Rs.50349/- remains due. Similarly, she had paid only Rs.820/- on 2.12.2014, Rs.3923/- on 25.3.2015 and Rs.1051/- on 18.9.2015. After 18.9.2015 till date the complainant has paid no amount towards her bills and from this account statement it is clear that the amount due towards the complainant on July, 2017 was Rs.1,01,982/-. The complainant has not placed on the file any receipt regarding the deposit of any amount after September, 2015. As already stated above, the complainant has not paid her bill fully and only made part payments. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble State Commission has not issued any direction to the OP regarding the issuance of electricity bill of the complainant vide order dated 24.12.2015 while deciding the first appeal of the complainant. The complainant has not produced any such evidence  vide which it can be said that the complainant is not liable to pay surcharge and other charges of the electricity. Even during the pendency of this complaint, the complainant has not paid any amount. From the record it seems that the complainant is lingering the payment of the electricity by way of filing the complaint again and again. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant was herself on fault by not depositing her electricity bill and has also failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OP.

9.             Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we do not find any merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The order if any during pendency of this complaint is hereby vacated. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 19.01.2018

                                                               

                                                                 President,

                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Veena Rani)        (Anil Sharma)

                          Member               Member