Haryana

StateCommission

A/390/2017

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

AZAD SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

14 Jul 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       390 of 2017

Date of Institution:       05.04.2017

Date of Decision :        14.07.2017

 

 

 

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

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

1.      Azad Singh son of late Sh. Dalip Singh, resident of Village Barwasni, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Raj Kumar, ALM, UHBVNL, Sub Office Bhatgaon, District Sonepat.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

3.      Rajesh (Contractor), son of Sh. Kartar Singh (Fauji), resident of Narajan Road, Rajiv Colony, Gali No.2, Near Jai Ma Bhandar cum Building Material Store, Samalkha, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat.

 

 

Respondent-Opposite Party No.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Ajay Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Sh. B.D. Bhatia, Advocate assisted by Shri Sandeep Sikri, Sub Divisional Officer for appellant.

Shri Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the respondent-complainant

None for the respondents No.2 and 3

 

                                                   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 February 15^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Azad Singh-complainant was allowed.  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

          “Thus, taking into consideration the order dated 06.01.2017 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula as mentioned above, we hereby allow the present complaint with the direction to the respondents 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 Raj Kumar, Assistant Lineman of UHBVNL-opposite party No.2 and Rajesh-contractor. He 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 for 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 his electric supply.

3.      The UHBVNL-opposite party No.1, in its written version, denied the averments of the complaint. It was pleaded that the complainant neither filed any application nor deposited any amount with the UHBVNL.  It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.  

4.      Raj Kumar-opposite party No.2, in his written version, pleaded that he never took any amount from the complainant.  He never assured the complainant to release the electricity connection.  Denying the remaining contents of the complaint, it was prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

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

6.      It was argued on behalf of the UHBVNL that the complainant unauthorizedly got the electric supply at his tubewell by getting the poles erected and transformer installed. 

7.      UHBVNL did not deny the fact that the transformer was issued by it. The complainant was not supposed to know that 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 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. 

8.      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 14.07.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK