UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. Vs. M/S. SADA RAM SOMNATH RICE MILLS
LAWS(NCD)-2020-8-43
NCDRC
Decided on August 26,2020

UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
M/S. Sada Ram Somnath Rice Mills Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.) RP no. 36 OF 2008 This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 24.08.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U T Chandigarh ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 359 of 2001.
(2.) The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that the complainant had received a bill dated 23.03.2000 for a sum of Rs.4,70,406/- which was not as per actual consumption of electric energy by the complainant. The complainant had been paying the electricity bill regularly till November 1999 but thereafter, due to financial constraints, it deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- only on 30.03.2000. However, in the month of January 2000, the complainant had moved an application for temporary disconnection of electric supply but the same was not done in spite of several requests. Further, the complainant received a bill dated 21.06.2000 demanding a sum of Rs.4,92,372/- which again was not as per actual consumption and was illegal and arbitrary. There being deficiency on the part of OPs in sending illegal and arbitrary bills since December 1999 till 24.06.2000. The complainant filed a Consumer Complaint no. 458 of 2000 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri ('the District Forum'). This complaint was filed praying for directions to the OPs to strike off the illegal amount of Rs.4,92,372/- pertaining to account no. B 7-1 and restore electric connection of the complainant.
(3.) The version of the OPs is that the complainant has not paid the electricity bills and the complainant had in fact to pay sum of Rs.5,18,344/- till the end of July 2000. Hence, the complainant was not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum. It has further been stated by the OPs that the TDCO was affected on 14.03.2000, however, on account of arrears/ non-payment of electricity charges the complainant cannot get the benefit of temporary disconnection because he was under arrears in the month of March 2000 when the connection was disconnected. It was further stated that the complainant was liable to pay one time Advance Consumption Deposit (ACD) including dismantle, connection order changes, line erection charges along with upto date surcharge. It has also been stated by the OPs that the electricity connection was restored in compliance of the order of the District Forum dated 18.09.2000. Emphasizing that the bill dated 21.06.2000 was genuine and legal, it was asserted by the OPs that the complainant was bound to pay this bill.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.