Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member
JATIN DUA - Appellant
Versus
ANSAL API LIMITED - Respondent
First Appeal No. 61 of 2017
Decided on : 04-12-2017
Mrs. Simarpreet Kaur, Advocate, for the Appellant; Shri Ajay Ghangas, Advocate, for the Respondents
The complainant's failure to make regular payments for electricity consumption, despite interventions and replacements of the defective meter, led to the court's decision that the complainant was liable to make payment of the electricity bills issued after a certain date.
Headnote:
Electricity Supply - Consumer Protection - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a house in a residential colony developed by the builder. The electricity meter installed in the premises became defective and started running fast. Despite interventions and replacements, the complainant failed to make regular payments for electricity consumption, leading to disconnection of the electricity connection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and was liable to make payment of the electricity bills issued after a certain date. The court affirmed the findings of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the defective electricity meter, non-payment of electricity bills, and the complainant's demands for concession in paying electricity bills.
Ratio Decidendi: The complainant's failure to make regular payments for electricity consumption, despite interventions and replacements of the defective meter, led to the court's decision that the complainant was liable to make payment of the electricity bills issued after a certain date.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the findings of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.
ORDER
Balbir Singh, Judicial Member. - This complainant's appeal is directed against the order dated October 18th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short 'the District Forum') whereby complaint filed by complainant-Jatin Dua was dismissed.
2. Ansal API Limited - Opposite Party/respondent No. 1 (for short 'the builder') developed a residential colony known as 'Sushant City' in and around Villages Tarf Insaar, Taraf Maqdoom, Ajijullapur, District Panipat, Haryana, after execution of an agreement between owners of the land and builder dated December 20th, 2006. In this residential colony, a built up House No.D-1532, measuring 1200 sq. ft. was purchased in the name of complainant Jatin Dua as well as his brother and mother for a consideration of Rs. 21,80,840/- vide conveyance-deed dated August 12th, 2008 (Annexure R-3). As per terms and conditions, the opposite parties are required to provide amenities of water and electricity supply for each and every residential premises situated in Sushant City, Panipat.
3. As per version of the complainant, he has been provided electricity supply by the opposite party by installation of a separate sub-meter. Although in the complaint or written version it is not specifically mentioned but during the course of arguments, both the parties told that for supply of electricity in this colony, a joint electricity meter has been installed by UHBVNL. Separate sub-electricity meters were installed in each and every house to calculate the monthly consumption of electricity of each and every unit of house separately. It was the responsibility of the opposite parties to collect the electricity bills amount from each and every house and to get the same deposited. Unfortunately, the electricity meter installed in the premises of the complainant became defective and started running 52% fast. Thereafter due to intervention of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Panipat, the electricity meter already installed was replaced with a new electricity meter but that electricity meter also became defective. In this situation, due to intervention of S.D.O. (Civil), Panipat, the opposite parties agreed to receive electricity bill amount considering bimonthly consumption of electricity as 401 in terms of units. Thereafter, the complainant continued making payment of the electricity charges considering bimonthly consumption as 401 units. Another new electricity meter was installed in this premises on February 07th, 2012. Thereafter, the opposite parties stopped sending electricity bills to the complainant despite time and again requests by the complainant. Due to non-availability of the reading of electricity meter, the complainant again started making payment of the electricity bills on average basis.
4. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 6330/- vide cheque dated September 08th, 2012 on account of electricity consumption charges for a period of eight months; an amount of Rs. 3166/- vide cheque dated January 11th, 2013 for a period of four months; an amount of Rs. 1600/- vide cheque dated March 08th, 2013 for a period of two months; an amount of Rs. 1600/- vide cheque dated May 08th, 2013 for a period of two months and an amount of Rs. 1600/- vide cheque dated July 11th, 2013 for a period of two months from May 08th, 2013 to July 08th, 2013. The complainant again received electricity bill regarding the period from January 04th, 2013 up to March 04th, 2013 showing consumption of electricity as 262 units. On July 08th, 2013, the above mentioned electricity connection was disconnected.
5. On July 19th, 2013 when the complainant filed an application with the opposite party No. 2 for restoration of the electricity connection, the opposite parties issued electricity bill raising demand of Rs. 46,045.29 which includes electricity consumption charges up to July 09th, 2013 mentioning consumption of electricity as 301.5 units and an amount of Rs. 43,313.84 as arrears. The opposite parties
