Haryana

StateCommission

A/536/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARAT SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

11 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.536 of  2015

Date of the Institution: 19.06. 2015

Date of Decision: 11.07.2016

 

SDO”OP” Sub Urban, UHBVNL, Jhajjar, Tehsil & District Jhajjar.

                                                                   .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

 

Bharat Singh s/o Kirodi Lal r/o villge Suloodha, Tehsil & Disttrict Jhajjar.

 

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.B.D.Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Mr.Parmod Parmar, Advocate for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                   It was alleged by the complainant that for tubewell connection he applied in the year 2008 and deposited Rs.3700/- vide book No.041163 receipt No.274 dated 07.01.2008, Rs.20,000/- vide book No.050310 receipt No.250 dated 29.10.2009, Rs.14000/- vide book No.057920  receipt No.345 dated 28.09.2010 and Rs.3350/- vide book No.067350 receipt No.338 dated 17.11.2011. Instead of releasing connection, Opposite party asked to deposit Rs.44400/-  more as per sales circular No.10/2011 vide memo Nos.2369  dated 18.06.2013 and 3085 dated 10.10.2013 on the ground that he opted for the scheme No.’C’ whereas he never opted for the same. OP be directed to release connection without asking for further payment as per aforesaid letters.

2.                O.P. filed reply and alleged that release of tubewell electric connection depends upon the terms and norms of the UHBVNL and guidelines of Government. As person interested for connection was to pay meter cost to be incurred by the department.  First demand notice for Rs.20,000/- was issued as per sales circular No.77/2001 (in short ‘SC’) and subsequent notice was issued keeping in view the sales circular No.25 of 2013. Vide SC No.U10/21 the applicants were asked to opt for any of the scheme mentioned below:

          “A.     The old scheme of 4 or more connection per transformer                            where consumer pay 20,000/- & 7000/- per span.

          B.      Three connection per transformer where consumer pay                              30,000/- & 7,000/- per span.

          C.      Single connection per transformer where consumer meets                full cost of estimate including T/F in addition to cost of                            span i.e. 7000/- per span”.

As per option “C” connection was to be released after payment of entire amount. Initially demand was raised as per SC No.77/2001 and he deposited the requisite amount on 29.10.2009. After estimate, second notice was sent to complainant to deposit Rs.14000/- which were deposited by him on 28.09.2010. He also deposited Rs.3350/- as asked by the department and thereafter his case was sent to higher authorities. In the meantime, SC U-11/2011 was clarified by department vide SC No.25/2013. Keeping in view the explanation, complainant was asked to deposit Rs.4440/- because he opted for scheme No.’C’.  There was no deficiency in service on their part. Objections about maintainability, locus standi, accruing cause of action and jurisdiction of Forum were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.                After hearing both the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (in short, District Forum) allowed the complaint vide order dated 11.05.2015 and directed as under:-

“Therefore, we declare the impugned notice No.2369 dated 18.06.2013, memo No.2842 dated 02.09.2013, memo No.3085 dated 10.10.2013 and memo No.357 dated 26.03.2014 as illegal, null and void and direct the respondent not to recover the amount of Rs.44,400/-  from the complainant with further surcharge etc. imposed upon it rather refund/adjust the amount already found deposited by the complainant, if any, towards the aforesaid amount in the future billing of complainant. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation expenses”

4.                         Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the opposite party-appellant has preferred this appeal. 

5.                         Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.                         Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that the complainant opted for scheme No.3 i.e. ‘C’ mentioned in circular No.U-11/2011 and that is why he was asked to deposit Rs.44400/- after clarification of SC of 2011 in the year 2013, as mentioned above.  When new SC has come into force he is liable to deposit the amount accordingly.  Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration this aspect and wrongly allowed the complaint.  So, impugned order dated 11.05.2015 be set aside. He placed reliance on the opinion of this Commission expressed in Sub Divisional Officer (OP) Vs.  Harbir  FA No.711 of 2014 decided on 31.08.2015.  

7.                         However, there is no dispute as far as opinion expressed by this Commission in the aforesaid case law in concerned but appellant/opposite party cannot derive any benefit from the same because that is based on altogether different  footings. In the present case, the demand was raised from the complainant vide letter No.2369 dated 18.06.2013 copy of which is Ex.R5. It is mentioned in this letter that he has opted for scheme No.3 mentioned in circular No.10/2011, so he was liable to pay Rs.44400/-. From the perusal of this letter, it is clear that demand has been raised from the complainant on the ground of opting scheme No.3. The appellant/OP has miserably failed to show that complainant ever asked to provide connection under scheme No.3. OP placed on record Annexure R9 wherein it was specifically mentioned by complainant that he be provided connection under scheme No.1 i.e. old system. It was the bounded duty of the OP to show that complainant ever opted for scheme No.3, which it has failed to do. When he has not opted for option/scheme No.3, OP/appellant cannot raise demand as mentioned in letter dated 18.06.2011 Ex.R5. When the very basis of demand is not proved, appellant cannot ask complainant to deposit Rs.44400/-, as mentioned above.  The findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

8.                          The statutory amount of Rs.1000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

July,11th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl. Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench