Haryana

Karnal

CC/176/2019

Jasmer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Jai Pal Sharma

15 Apr 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 176 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.27.03.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 15.04.2021

 

Jasmer Singh age 57 years son of Ajit Singh, resident of village Budhanpur Abad Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Division L-II city, near old Bus Standi Karnal through its SDO.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

       Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.      

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present: Shri Jaipal Sharma counsel for complainant.

                Shri Jasbir Singh counsel for opposite party.

 

                (Jaswant Singh President)

 

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 opposite party (hereinafter referred as to OP) and having an electricity connection bearing account no.CD17/4221 (NDS) and is paying the electricity bill regularly. Due to some domestic problem the complainant could not open his shop for sometime. The complainant surprised to receive a notice no.3607 dated 12.12.2018 in which the OP directed the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.35,483/-. The premises of the complainant never checked by any officials of the OP and no checking report was handed over to the complainant and made a bill showing excess amount, whereas there was meter installed in the premises of the complainant and meter is in running condition. The complainant immediately approached the OP and enquired about the notice but OP gave no satisfactory reply. On 01.02.2019 the official of the OP came to the premises of complainant and removed the meter from the premises of complainant illegally and unlawfully. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP and requested to re-install the meter of the premises of complainant and to receive the electricity charges as per meter reading, but OP postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant requested the OP to withdraw the abovesaid illegal notice and not to recover the illegal amount and to restore the electricity connection but OP refused to do so and threatened the complainant in case the said amount is not deposited, then a criminal case be registered against him. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi: cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the amount in question is actually due and recoverable from the complainant because he has not paid the amount since 25.05.2017. It is further pleaded that the connection of the complainant was disconnected in January, 2019 on the defaulting amount of Rs.56776/-. The complainant has not paid the said amount to the OP despite repeated requests made by the official of the OP. It is further pleaded that UHBVN has launched a scheme for waiving of some amount to the defaulting customers in order to bring them in the list of regular customers hence as per said scheme rebate was given to the complainant and notice dated 12.12.2018 was served for an amount of Rs.35,483/-. Complainant instead of depositing the said amount filed this false and vague complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Satish Kumar Ex.CW2/A, copy of notice Ex.C1 and copy of bill Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 17.09.2019 by suffering separate statement.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence Performa for non-traceable report from Revenue Section Ex.OP1 and bill Revision Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 13.02.2020 by suffering separate statement.

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

6.             Learned counsel for complainant argued that complainant was using an electric connection and was paying electricity bill regularly without any failure despite that the OP had sent a notice No.3607 dated 12.12.2018, directing the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.35,483/-, however, the said amount of excess than the meter reading. He further argued that on 01.02.2019, the official of OP removed the electricity meter from the premises of the complainant illegally and unlawfully. He further submitted that on the asking of OP, he has applied for new connection and deposited Rs.2500/- as security with clerk of the OP namely Raju but the OP neither restored the previous connection nor installed new one. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint. 

7.             Per-contra, learned counsel for OP argued that the complainant has not made payment of bills from 25.05.2017 and hence, the bill as well as notice for deposition of an amount of Rs.35,483/- was issued to the complainant after waiving an amount of Rs.10,362/- under a scheme. He further argued that in the month of January 2019, an amount of Rs.56,776/- was due towards the complainant, hence, the electricity connection of the premises of the complainant was disconnected. It is the complainant who himself is at fault. Hence, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

8.             It is pertinent to mention here that learned counsel for OP Shri Jasbir Singh, appeared before this Commission on 09.04.2019 and filed memo of appearance. Thereafter, complaint was adjourned for 02.05.2019 for filing written version and power of attorney on behalf of OP. Till date, learned counsel for OP has not filed the power of attorney on behalf of OP. Very surprisingly, he filed written version on 19.06.2019, with his signature only but without the signature of the OP. On perusal of the file, it reveals that the OP has never authorized Shri Jasbir Singh, Advocate, to appear in the present case to defend and to file written version. As per Order 6 Rule 14 CPC, every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader.  

Order 6 Rule 14 CPC is reproduced as under:-

14. Pleading to be signed-      Every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any):

Provided that where a party pleading is, by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorized by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf.

 

9.             But in the present complaint, pleading (written version) has not been either signed by the party nor by the authorized person. Thus, written version as well as evidence produced by the OP, cannot be taken into consideration. Hence, evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same.

10.           As per the version of the complainant, the premises of the complainant was never checked by the officials of the OP and OP issued notice No.3607 dated 12.12.2018 for depositing Rs.35,483/-. OP failed to prove on record that on what basis the said amount has been calculated.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the act of the OP while issuing the above notice No.3607 dated 12.12.2018 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

11.           As per the version of the complainant, he has applied for a new connection and deposited Rs.2500/- on 29.01.2020 with a clerk of the OP namely Raju. If the OP had received the above amount for installation of new connection, then the complainant is entitled for a new electricity connection if he fulfills the terms and conditions of the OP.

12.           In view of above discussion, we dispose of the present complaint with a direction to OP to install new electricity connection at the premises of the complainant immediately, if the complainant had deposited the said amount of Rs.2500/- as alleged by him if he fulfills the terms and conditions  for the new electricity connection or restore the old electricity connection without charging amount mentioned in notice No.3607 dated 12.12.2018. However, OP is at liberty to issue fresh demand notice after checking electricity consumption from the previous electricity meter of the complainant, if possible. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated the order accordingly, and the file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 15.04.2021                                                                    

                                                                    President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

     Member                                Member