AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE Petitioner has filed the Revision Petition against the order dated 02.07.2012 passed by the Hon ''ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana, (in short, ''State Commission '') in First Appeal No. 540 of 2012, challenging the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani, Haryana, (in short, ''District Forum '') in Consumer Complaint no. 20 of 2009. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal on 02.07.2012, being bereft of merit. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on 21.03.2012, after appreciating the documents on record and also after considering the statutory provisions and relevant judgments placed on file.
The facts in brief:
ShriLacchman, the ComPlainant was a consumer of DakshinHaryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Bhiwani, Haryana (in short DHBVNL) is having an electricity connection bearing account No. B 23 DB 0343 and has been using and Paying the bills regularly. He has cleared the electricity bills, till December, 2005, and moved an aPPlication for Permanent disconnection of above said electricity connection. Thereafter, the OP issued a bill, dated 06.12.2005, for Rs.3918/ uPon which he met the SDO concerned, who, advised to dePosit Rs.240/ and that the remaining amount will be waived off to all the farmers of Haryana State. It is further alleged that the SDO made necessary remarks in the aPPlication of ComPlainant and directed to issue PDCO. The ComPlainant further alleged that Shri Krishan alias Hari Kishan, Lineman, removed the meter and handed over to Goverdhan, L.M. in the month of December, 2005, but it was surPrised to note that OP issued a Bill dated 11.04.2008, amounting to Rs.8289/ . The ComPlainant visited the office of the OPs, but they did not Pay any heed, and a written comPlaint, dated 18.07.2008, was made to the higher authorities. Thereafter, the Office of Chairman, Forum of Redressal Grievance of Consumers, Vidhut Sadan, Hissar, directed the S.E. (OP) Circle, DHBVNL, Bhiwani, to redress the grievance, immediately. But, the OPs again issued a bill dated 10.08.2008, amounting to Rs.9184/ and on enquiry it was told that due to clerical mistake, the bill has been issued and the same will be rectified, as Per rules and regulations of the Nigam. The ComPlainant requested the OPs to issue "No Dues Certificate " in January 2009, but OP refused to issue the same and demanded Rs.9184/ , along with surcharge, etc. Even after disconnection of electricity, in December, 2005, the OP issued bill, which was wrong, illegal, arbitrary, against law and facts, and he is not liable to Pay the same. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the Part of OPs and as such, he filed comPlaint No. 20/2009, in the District Forum. The OPs denied the deficiency and all the allegations made by the comPlainant. OP stated that the ComPlainant was a chronic defaulter and had not cleared his bills, for a long Period; therefore, he was not entitled to Waiver Scheme, as Per conditions of the Policy. Also, the ComPlainant was not entitled to get "No Dues Certificate ", without making Payment of energy bills, along with surcharge, uP to date.
THE District Forum dismissed the complaint, ignoring the facts of the case.
AGGRIEVED by the order of District Forum, the complainant, preferred an Appeal No. 540 of 2012, before the state commission. The State Commission heard both the parties and on the basis of evidence on record, dismissed the appeal.
HENCE , the complainant preferred this revision petition.
WE have heard the Counsel for Petitioner and perused the evidence on record and the orders of both the fora below. It was an admitted fact that the complainant was a consumer of OPs and a chronic defaulter. The District Forum observed that there is no documentary evidence to prove that the Complainant applied for disconnection of electricity in December 2005. It is also evident that the electricity meter of Complainant was neither removed nor PDCO was affected. The Complainant did not produce any acknowledgement of receipt from OPs regarding handing over of the meter to the concerned Lineman. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, and hence, we do not find any need to interfere with the orders of both the Fora below. The revision petition, is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.