BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 618 of 2006.
Date of Institution: 05-12-2006.
Date of Decision: 10-12-2009.
Krishan Chand son of Shri Munshi Ram, resident of village Dhanana, Tehsil & District Bhiwani, at present resident of Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus.
1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Hisar through its Managing Director.
2. XEN, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Bhiwani.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Bawani Khera.
……Respondents.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Sitting: - Shri R. K. Khanagwal, President,
Smt. Sushila Rathee, Member,
Present: Shri R. K. Punia, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri S. S. Phogat, Advocate for respondents.
O R D E R
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he has taken an electric connection bearing account no. DN11-0897 WA and paying the bills regularly. It is further alleged that the complainant shifted his residence at Bhiwani and has moved an application dated 16.1.2006 to respondent no. 3 for disconnecting his above said account, which was duly received by the respondents. It is further alleged that despite the fact that the complainant moved an application for disconnection of his account, the respondents kept on issuing the bills. It is further alleged that the complainant requested the respondents No. 2 & 3 many a times to withdraw the bills issued after 16.1.2006, but to no effect. 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 true & material facts. On merits, it is alleged that the complainant never submitted any application dated 16.1.2006 to the respondents for disconnection of electric supply from his premises. In the month of December, 2005 an amount of Rs. 6725/- was due and payable by him, but he did not deposit the same and he has been using the supply till now as per consumption shown in the ledger of A/C No. DN-11/897 and during 10/2006 and 12/2006 the premises of complainant found locked, so average has been charged, which is adjustable on receipt of actual consumption. Now a sum of Rs. 10,098/- is due against the complainant as on 12/2006 as per ledger maintained by the respondents. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Hence, 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 record, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves to be allowed partly, as there is deficiency in service on the part of the officials of the respondents. Admittedly the electricity meter bearing no. DN-11/897 stood in the name of the complainant. It has come in evidence that the complainant has moved an application dated 16.1.2006 to respondent no. 3 for disconnecting his above said account, which was duly received by the respondents. It has also proved on record that the respondents did not disconnect the connection of the complainant and kept on sending the bills, even after moving of application by the complainant on 16.1.2006 for disconnection of his electricity connection, so they are at fault, as the complainant had shifted his residence after 16.1.2006 and did not use the electricity supply. But the complainant failed to prove that he had cleared all the dues of the Nigam before 16.1.2006. On the other hand, the respondents proved on record that a sum of Rs. 6725/- was due against the complainant in the month of December, 2005 by placing on record copy of ledger. So the complainant is liable to pay the amount of Rs. 6725/- without any surcharge to the respondents, as the same was due against him in the month of December, 2005 and the complainant is not liable to pay any amount after 16.1.2006, the date on which he had moved application to respondent no. 3 for disconnection of his electricity account, because the respondents did not take any action and thereafter the complainant locked the premises and shifted his residence and did not use the electricity, as admitted by respondents that premises found locked. So the respondents were at fault. Hence, in view of the above circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the respondents are directed: -
1. Not to charge any amount from the complainant after 16.1.2006 and to withdraw the bills issued after 16.1.2006.
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. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 10-12-2009. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sushila Rathee)
Member.