First Appeal No. 782 of 2015. Case: Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Ors. Vs Haryana Jan Pratinidhi Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 782 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: B.D. Bhatia, Advocate and For Respondents: Arun Kumar Singal, Advocate |
| Judges | Nawab Singh, J. (President), B.M. Bedi, Member (J) and Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 |
| Citation | I (2016) CPJ 88 (Har.) |
| Judgement Date | November 30, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
B.M. Bedi, Member (J)
-
Deputy General Manager, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL) and another-Opposite Parties, are in appeal against the order dated May 23rd, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short the District Forum') in Consumer Complaint No. 103 of 2011. The Haryana Jan Pratinidhi Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited-Complainant/respondent, obtained electric connection bearing account No. BS-44-0018 (old Account No. BS-66) from the DHBVNL and was paying bills regularly. The officials of the DHBVNL checked the above said connection on June 11th, 2010 and observed that the connected load of the complainant Society was 15% more than the sanctioned load, accordingly, the DHBVNL as per instructions of Sales Circular No. 62/2006, charged tariff on the basis of Bulk Non-domestic Supply of Tariff rate of Rs. 4.09 per unit instead of Bulk Domestic Supply of Tariff at the rate of Rs. 3.50 per unit and thus vide notice bearing Memo No. 1253 dated June 25th, 2010, raised demand of Rs. 7,28,046 from the complainant, as difference of tariff, above stated. By filing complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant challenged the above notice stating it as arbitrary and illegal.
-
The opposite parties/DHBVNL, contested complaint by filing reply stating that the impugned amount was rightly demanded from the complainant as per sales instructions of the DHBVNL.
-
After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint issuing direction to the DHBVNL as under:
...Consequently the Notice of demands dated 25.6.2010 (C1) is null and void along with future bill of demand thereof i.e. dated 15.9.2010 (C3) and 14.1.2011 (C4). Thus, the impugned illegal demand stand quashed and OP are directed to rectify the impugned Bills. The O.P. thus has adopted unfair trade practice to harass the complainant Society, causing mental agony and are also deficient in providing services to its valued consumer.
Consequently, the complainant society is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 20,000 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization from the OP. it is also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs. 5000.
-
Learned Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties urged...
To continue reading
Request your trial