BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 40 of 2006.
Date of Institution: 25-01-2006.
Date of Decision: 16-12-2009.
Dharampal s/o Shri Bhagwana Ram, resident of Samaspur, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri and Distt. Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus.
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Nagar, Hisar through its Managing Director.
- Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Urban Division No. 2, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Bhiwani.
- Sub Divisional Officer, OP Sub Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
……Respondents.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Present: Sh. Surat Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. K.R. Sangwan, Advocate for respondents.
Sitting: – Shri R. K. Khanagwal, President,
Smt. Sushila Rathee, Member,
O R D E R
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he has taken an electricity connection bearing account no. SS-11/566 and has been paying the bills of the electricity charges regularly. It is further alleged that the meter of the complainant was OK and all its seals were intact at the time when it was removed by the officials of the respondents. It is further alleged that after removal of meter the respondent no. 3 sent a notice memo No. 1442 dated 3.10.2005 to complainant showing M & T seals tampered wrongly & illegally and imposed a penalty of Rs. 24,000/-. It is further alleged that the complainant never found committing theft of electricity by the official of the Nigam and no notice was ever given to him regarding tampering of seals and the checking report prepared by the officials of the Nigam is wrong, illegal and liable to be set aside. Hence, this complaint.
2. Respondents on appearance filed the contested written statement and took preliminary objections qua locus-standi; cause of action; maintainability; estoppel; jurisdiction; no deficiency and suppression of the true and material facts. On merits, it is alleged that the premises of the complainant was checked on 30.9.2005 by Ramphal, JE alongwith staff and the checking report L.L.-I No. 2/661 was prepared and the “Meter found link system’ which clearly means that it was a theft case and the penalty of Rs. 24,000/- was charged vide sundry item No. 294/42/78 dated 30.9.2005 as per sales circular No. D-36/2004. It is further alleged that the complainant has not deposited the same even after serving a notice memo No. 1442 dated 3.10.2005 and so the respondent no. 3 has written for registration of FIR against him vide memo No. 1448 dated 5.10.2005 and the complainant is bound to pay the penalty amount. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the respondents and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties filed their duly sworn affidavits to prove their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. It is the admitted fact that complainant is consumer and having electricity connection bearing no. SS-11/566. The case of the respondents is that the premises of the complainant was checked on 30.9.2005 by Ramphal, JE alongwith staff and the checking report was prepared and the “Meter found link system’ which clearly means that it was a theft case and the penalty of Rs. 24,000/- was charged vide sundry item No.294/42/78 dated 30.9.2005 as per sales circular No. D-36/2004.
These allegations cannot be considered as true, because the respondents have failed to explain that how the complainant was committing theft of energy, as they only written in the checking report that “meter found link system. From the perusal of the checking report dated 30.9.2005, it is clear that no person from the locality was joined and no photograph of the link system was taken by the respondents checking party. Thus it is not proved on record how the complainant was committing theft of electricity. Therefore, in view of these circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs by setting aside the checking report & notice in question and the penalty is also quashed. The respondents are directed: -
1. To refund the amount if any deposited by the complainant towards the penalty in question alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization.
2. To pay Rs. 2200/- as litigation charges.
The compliance of the order shall be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The delay, if any, in deciding the complaint is due to non-joining of the regular President. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 16-12-2009. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sushila Rathee)
Member.