Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 454 (UTT)

DHBVNL v. Lakhmi Chand Bansal

2008-10-13

RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, S.N.KAPOOR

body2008
ORDER Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member : This revision petition is filed by S.D.O., DHBVNL, City Sub Division, Krishna Nagar, District Hisar, Haryana against the order dated 8.4.2008 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana in First Appeal No. 475 of 2008 whereby their appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint in Complaint No. 564 of 2005. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are: Shri Lakhmi Chand Bansal, a resident of Mohalla Juthran, Hisar had electricity. connection for the last 45 years. Suddenly on 5.11.2005 some officials from the department of the petitioner checked the meter installed at the premises of the complainant and reported that the body seal, the company seal and the MCB seals were broken. The terminal plate was tampered and Y-phase was not working. They disconnected the electric supply and removed the meter. Thereafter a Demand Notice dated 7.11.2005 for Rs. 28,800 as compounding amount was issued to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said Demand Notice he requested the petitioner to withdraw the notice but they pretended to lodge criminal case against the complainant in case the said penalty amount was not deposited. District Forum directed the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs. 28,800 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment and quashed the demand that was raised on the' complainant. Petitioners were also directed not to disconnect the electric supply. The State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein. 3. There is a delay of 42 days in filing this revision petition which has not been sufficiently explained. However, we have heard the Counsel for the petitioner on merits who relied upon the checking report given after checking on 5.11.2005 where the officers found tampering of the meter, broken seals, etc. Strangely, after this report the department officials did not send the meter to M& T Laboratory to pinpoint the actual defect in the working of the meter to support their findings. Strangely, after this report the department officials did not send the meter to M& T Laboratory to pinpoint the actual defect in the working of the meter to support their findings. Secondly, (he allegation of theft of energy could not be substantiated on any other grounds also, because, complainant has been paying bill for 45years without any complainant and further there is no variation or usurpation in consumption of electricity After the seals were tampered, the complainant should have tried to take advantage of the situation and the bill amount should be much less whereas that is not the case here. Officers of petitioner department seem to have illegally implicated the complainant in a false case of theft of energy and compelled him to deposit the penalty amount under the fear of registration of a criminal case against him. Strangely, the officials obtained the report in the absence of the complainant or his family members. There is signature of one Shri Pawan Kumar on the checking report whose relationship with the complainant has not been established It is unfortunate that the complement has gone through so much of harassment and he must have suffered tremendous mental agony for no fault of his. It is clear from the facts of the case that officials of the petitioner department disconnected the power supply of the complainant and we hold that there is a gross negligence and deficiency in service on their part. Revision Petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.