Haryana

StateCommission

A/372/2016

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALWINDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

08 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No    :   372 of 2016

Date of Institution :   28.04.2016

Date of Decision   :   08.09.2016

 

1.      Sub Divisional Officer, Operation, Sub Division, DHBVNL, Ratia, District Fatehabad.

 

2.      DHBVNL through Executive Engineer, Operation Division, DHBVN, Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.

                   Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Balwinder Singh son of Sh. Jaswant Singh son of Sawan Singh, resident of Village Bhani Khera, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad.

Respondent-Complainant

 

                            

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member                                                                                                                                          

Present:              Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants

                             Shri Rahul Jain, proxy counsel for Mr. N.P. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH, J (ORAL)

 

          Jaswant Singh, since deceased (father of Balwinder Singh) had a tubewell connection in his field No.82//11 in Village Bhani Khera, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad.  On May 07^th, 2014 he moved an application before the SDO (OP), DHBVNL, Ratia (for short, ‘Nigam’) to shift the tubewell connection in his field No.81//13 because the water in the tubewell installed in field No.82//11 was not fit for consumption.  He also stated in his affidavit (Annexure A-1) that he was ready to pay the expenses of shifting the tubewell connection as per the circulars issued by the Nigam.  The Nigam prepared deposit estimate (Annexure A-2) for the shifting of the tubewell connection, that is, total cost of shifting of the connection = Rs.75000; Discount= Rs.5000/-; Rs.21,600/- already deposited; Balance= Rs.48,400/-, out of which Rs.10,000/- was again deposited and the total amount to be charged was Rs.38,400/-.  The tubewell connection has already been shifted as per the counsel for the Nigam and the counsel for the complainant.  Since amount of Rs.38,400/- was not deposited by Jaswant Singh, the Nigam issued the notice to him to deposit the said amount as mentioned in Annexure A-3.  Jaswant Singh died.  His son Balwinder Singh filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (for short, ‘District Forum’) alleging that the Nigam was not entitled to recover the amount of Rs.38,400/- from him. 

2.      The District Forum vide order dated January 25^th, 2016 accepted the complaint directing the Nigam as hereunder:-

          “9.     The sequel of aforementioned discussion is that bill in question excluding the usual consumption charges is not justified and same is hereby set aside.  The complaint is accordingly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to overhaul the account of complainant by taking into consideration the Sales Circular No.D-23/2002 prevailing at the time of receiving the first payment (Vide Annexure C1) by adjusting the amount of Rs.32,155/- already deposited in total and an amount of Rs.22,784/- spent by the consumer for purchasing the material and poles etc….”       

3.      Aggrieved of the aforesaid order, Nigam has filed the present appeal.

4.      As mentioned above, Jaswant Singh in his affidavit (Annexure A-1) had clearly stated that he was ready to pay the amount to the Nigam as per the rules and regulations.  The Nigam has charged the amount as per the Sales Circulars No.D-23/2002 dated March 27^th, 2002 and D-1/2012 dated January 06^th, 2012. 

5.      Learned counsel for the Nigam has also stated at bar that the complainant was asked to pay the amount as per the circulars referred to above.  Since Jaswant Singh stated that he was ready to pay the amount as per the circulars in getting the tubewell connection shifted to his field No.81//13, the complainant was supposed to pay the said amount to the Nigam.  So, the Nigam was rightly entitled to recover the said amount of Rs.38,400/-.  However, it is made clear that no surcharge, penalty, interest etc shall be charged by the Nigam from the complainant on the said amount of Rs.38,400/-.

6.      For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. 

 

Announced 08.09.2016

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK