Haryana

StateCommission

A/108/2017

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

AJIT - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

26 Apr 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       108 of 2017

Date of Institution:       30.01.2017

Date of Decision :        26.04.2017

 

UHBVNL through its SDO Murthal, Sub Division, Sonepat Office at Opposite Sector 15, Rajiv Colony, Sonepat.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

 

1.      Ajit son of Chand Ram, resident of Village Chitana, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Jasbir Punia, JE, UHBVNL, Sub Office, Bhatgaon, District Sonepat, son of Sh. Lal Chand, resident of Village Didwadi, Tehsil and District Panipat.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

3.      Dilbagh, Foreman, UHBVNL, Sub Division Office, Bhatgaon, District Sonepat son of Sube Singh, Village Chitana, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.3

4.      Satbir, ALM, UHBVNL, Sub Division Office, Bhatgaon, District Sonepat, son of Khazan, Village Karewari, District Sonepat.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.4

5.      Azad, Driver, UHBVNL, Sub Office Bhatgaon, District Sonepat, son of Kali Ram, Village Khizarpur, Jat Majra, District Sonepat.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.5

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate assisted by Shri Sandeep Sikri, Sub Divisional Officer for appellant.

Shri Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the complainant

Jasbir Punia, JE-respondents No.2

Dilbagh, Foreman-respondent No.3

Satbir, Assistant Lineman-respondent No.4

                             Azad, Driver-respondent No.5

 

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)  

 

          The instant appeal filed by UHBVNL-opposite party No.1 (appellant herein) calls in question the correctness of the order dated December 08^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Ajit-complainant was allowed.  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

          “Accordingly, it is directed to the respondents not to disconnect the electricity supply of the complainant.  Further it is directed to the respondents to install the electricity meter to the tubewell of the complainant and further to regularize the electricity connection of the complainant without demanding any amount from the complainant.”

2.      The UHBVNL-appellant launched a scheme namely ‘Self Execution Scheme’ for release of tubewell electricity connections to farmers. The complainant contacted Jasbir Punia, Junior Engineer of UHBVNL-opposite party No.2 and Rajesh-contractor. He paid Rs.1,10,000/- to them.  Accordingly, by erecting poles and installing a transformer, tubewell connection was released to the complainant. However, neither any receipt for Rs.1,10,000/- was given to the complainant nor any electric meter was installed at his tubewell. The UHBVNL instead of regularizing the connection and without installing meter, threatened the complainant to disconnect his electric supply.

3.      The UHBVNL, in its written version, denied the averments of the complaint.  It was pleaded that First Information Report No.360 dated July 13^th, 2015 under Section 406/420 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Sonepat was registered against Jasbir Punia-opposite party No.2, the then Junior Engineer, UHBVNL and other employees of UHBVNL for dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Jasbir Punia was never directed to release the electricity connection and no material viz. poles, wires etc were provided by the UHBVNL to him.   Neither any amount was deposited by the complainant in the account of UHBVNL nor any assurance was given for installation of electricity meter to the complainant. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      Jasbir Punia-opposite party No.2, in his written version, pleaded that he never met the complainant.  He never took any amount from the complainant.  He did not install or provide any pole, wire and transformer in the field of the complainant.  Denying the remaining contents of the complaint, it was prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      The opposite parties No.3 to 5 in their separate written version pleaded that the complainant never paid any amount to them.  It was not the duty of Satbir, Assistant Lineman-opposite party No.4 to install the poles, wires and transformer rather it was the duty of private contractor. The complainant had never moved any application for the release of connection of his tubewell.  Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied and prayed for its dismissal. 

6.      The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

7.      It was argued on behalf of the UHBVNL that Jasbir Punia, Junior Engineer (JE) of the UHBVNL got erected the poles and installed transformer illegally for which he was charge-sheeted and punished.  The complainant unauthorizedly got the electric supply at his tubewell by getting the poles erected and transformer installed. 

8.      UHBVNL did not deny the fact that the transformer was issued by it. The complainant was not supposed to know that Jasbir Punia, Junior Engineer, who was an official of the UHBVNL, was acting under the instructions or in violation of the instructions of UHBVNL. It is not in dispute that Jasbir Punia, Junior Engineer got the transformer issued from UHBVNL.  He got the transformer installed, erected the poles and released the connection. Throughout there was no fault on the part of complainant and he was not to be blamed.  It has been admitted at bar by learned counsel for the UHBVNL that the department of UHBVNL is getting poles and transformers etc installed through the contractor.  Shri Sandeep Sikri, S.D.O. who is present in person, confirmed the installation of transformer and poles in the fields of the complainant and even the connection was released; though he states that it is an unauthorized release of connection.

9.      For the reasons recorded supra, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

 

 

Announced 26.04.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK