BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.
Complaint No. 379 of 2008
Instituted on:27.11.2008.
Date of order:29.10.2009
Sunil Kumar son of Shri Ram Kishan, resident of House No. 173, Sector-15, Sonepat.
…….Complainant.
VERSUS
S.D.O. U.H.B.V.N.L. Model Town, Sub Division, Sector-14, Sonepat.
……..Respondent.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986
SITTING- SH.JOGINDER NANDAL, PRESIDENT.
SH. MAHENDER KUMAR MALIK, MEMBER.
SMT. BHIM KAUR CHILLER, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.P. Antil, Adv. for complainant.
Sh. R.S. Antil, Adv. for respondent.
O R D E R
The brief facts of the present complaint, according to the complainant, are that he is consumer of the respondent department having electricity connection bearing A/c No. OP-1448 installed at his house and is paying the bills regularly. It is averred that the respondent has issued a memo No. 1159/CA dated 4.6.2008 to the complainant through which the respondent has demanded a penalty of Rs. 39,311/-and Rs. 24,000/-i.e. total Rs. 63,311/-from the complainant on the ground of alleged false checking whereas the complainant has never committed any theft of electricity as alleged by the respondent. Negligence and deficiency in service of the respondent has been alleged by the complainant. It is prayed that the respondent be directed to withdraw the impugned memo No. 1159/CA dated 4.6.2008, to refund the amount of Rs. 63,311/-already deposited by the complainant under the threat of respondent. The complainant also sought compensation on account of mental agony, harassment etc. suffered by him.
2. On notice, the respondent appeared and filed the reply stating therein that some official of the respondent checked the premises of complainant on 17.5.2008 and during checking, it was found that the meter of complainant was running slow. The report was prepared at the spot which was signed by the complainant. A notice vide Memo No. 1114/C dated 29.5.2008 was issued vide which the complainant was asked to attend M&T lab Rohtak on 30.5.2008 at about 11.00 A.M. to submit his consent. The complainant did not visit there and laboratory find out that meter cover found cut and re-fixed in sealing circuit with some adhesive. The meter original circuit was found tempered; 2 number company seal provided on meter cover was found tempered and the meter of complainant was found moving slowly. Hence, the penalty has legally been demanded by the respondent and the complainant has rightly deposited the said amount. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and prayed for dismissal of complaint with heavy costs.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
4. From the perusal of checking report placed on the file, it has been observed that the complainant has put his signature accepting the contents of the checking report and receiving the copy of the checking report. The notice dated 29.5.2008 issued to the complainant vide memo No. 1114/A by the respondent clearly proves this fact that the complainant was asked to reach the M&T Lab, Rohtak on 30.5.2008 or to submit the consent but as per the report made on this document, the complainant refused to sign the said notice. The Laboratory report is also on the file vide which it is clearly established that the meter of complainant was found moving slow because it was tampered by the complainant to make its running slow.
5. After giving thoughtful consideration to each and every aspect of this complaint, reply points argued by the counsel for the parties and perusing the documents very carefully, we are of the considered view that the penalty has rightly been demanded from the complainant by the respondent. The notice issued by the respondent in this respect is legal and valid and there is no fault of the respondent. The complainant is liable to pay the amount of penalty as demanded by the respondent. We therefore, find no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The complaint being merit less, is hereby dismissed with no orders as to cost. Accordingly, the present complaint stands disposed of.
Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced
Dated:29.10.2009 PRESIDENT
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonepat.
(M.K.Malik) (Bhim Kaur Chillar)
Member Member
Each and Every page
has been signed by me.
PRESIDENT, DCDRF,
Sonepat.