SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER,OP) SUB URBAN SUB DIVISION UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED Vs. PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in Revision Petition No.94 of 2016 namely Shri Partap Singh got a tube-well connection installed from the petitioner Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., paying a sum of Rs.36,350/- on 09.11.2011, pursuant to a demand notice issued from the service provider. He received a notice dated 18.6.2013, demanding an additional amount of Rs.65,650/- based upon a circular bearing No.10/2011. Being aggrieved he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Nigam on the ground that in view of a new Circular dated 16.5.2011, the customers were asked to give options under which they wanted the tube-well connection and since the complainant had opted for option 'C', a revised estimate was prepared and the demand notice based upon the revised estimate was issued to the complainant. It was also stated in the reply that the option 'C' was exercised by the complainant on 26.11.2011 and the notice demanding Rs.36,350/- was wrongly issued to me on 04.11.2011.

(3.) The District Forum vide 09.6.2014, directed the petitioner not to recover the aforesaid amount of Rs.65,650/- from the complainant and declared the demand notice to be illegal, null and void. The complainant was also awarded cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2,000/-. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission. Being aggrieved, the petitioner Nigam is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.