Haryana

StateCommission

A/817/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARJAN DASS - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.NEGI

06 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      817 of 2016

Date of Institution:      06.09.2016

Date of Decision :       06.01.2017

 

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Sub Divisional Officer Murthal Sub Division Office at Rajiv Colony, Opposite Sector-15, Sonipat.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1.      Arjan Dass s/o Sh. Giani Ram, Resident of Village Barwasni, Tehsil and District Sonipat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Raj Kumar, ALM, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Office, Bhatgaon, District Sonipat.

3.      Rajesh (Contractor) s/o Sh. Kartar Singh (Fauji), Resident of Narjana Road, Rajiv Colony, Gali No.2, near Jai Ma Bhandar-cum-Building Material Store, Samalkha, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat.

Respondents-Opposite Parties No.2 & 3

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                     

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

Shri Ashwani Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1-complainant.

None for respondents No.2 & 3 (dispensed with).

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘UHBVNL’)-Opposite Party No.1, is in appeal against the order dated August 8^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Arjan Dass-complainant (respondent No.1) was accepted directing the opposite parties as under:-

“…..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.                Arjan Dass-complainant/respondent No.1 filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that the UHBVNL-Opposite Party No.1/appellant launched a scheme namely ‘Self Execution Scheme’ for release of tubewell electricity connections to farmers. The complainant/respondent No.1 contacted Raj Kumar-Assistant Line Man (ALM) and Rajesh-contractor of the UHBVNL and paid Rs.70,000/- to them. Accordingly, by erecting poles and installing a transformer, tubewell connection was released to the complainant. However, neither any receipt with respect to the payment of Rs.70,000/- 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 the electric supply of the complainant.

3.                The opposite parties No.1 and 2 in their joint version denied the allegations of the complainant. It was stated that neither any amount was deposited by the complainant nor any poles etcetera were installed for releasing electric connection to the complainant. It was further stated that Rajesh-opposite party No.3 was not an authorised contractor of the UHBVNL. Thus, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The Opposite Party No.3 did not appear despite service and he was proceeded exparte.

5.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint and directed the opposite parties as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

6.                It is the case of the appellant that the complainant unauthorizedly got erected poles and transformer and got the electric supply at his tubewell. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the Junior Engineer (JE) of the UHBVNL got erected the poles and installed transformer illegally for which he was charge-sheeted and punished.

7.                There is no denying fact that the transformer was issued from the store of the UHBVNL. The consumer/complainant cannot know as to whether the J.E., who is an official of the UHBVNL, was acting under the instructions or in violation of the instructions of his superiors. The fact that J.E. got the transformer issued from the store of UHBVNL and got installed it on the poles and connected the connection, is not disputed. So, the complainant was not to be blamed for it.  Shri Sandeep Sikri, S.D.O. who is present in person, confirmed the installation of transformer on poles in the fields of the complainant and even the connection being released; though he states that it is an unauthorized release of connection. A photograph (Annexure-1) with respect to erection of poles and installation of transformer has been placed on the file, which supports the case of complainant-respondent No.1.

8.                Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on the record, the impugned order does not require any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

Announced 06.01.2017

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL