Haryana

StateCommission

A/258/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHIM SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

29 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     258 of 2016

Date of Institution:     25.03.2016

Date of Decision :     29.07.2016

 

1.     Sub Divisional Officer, Operation, Sub Division No.3, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Rohtak.

2.     Executive Engineer, City Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Rohtak.

3.     Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Bhim Singh s/o Sh. Shiv Lal, Resident of near Old Jail Farm, Vishal Nagar, Rohtak.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

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

                             Respondent-Bhim Singh, in person.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Sub Divisional Officer, Operation, Sub Division No.3, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL), Rohtak and others -Opposite Parties, are in appeal against the order dated February 8^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’).  For ready reference, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

                   “9.     In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the opposite parties shall restore the connection from NDS to AP category in the name of complainant, to overhaul the account of complainant w.e.f year 2012 to till date and issue a fresh bill on AP rates to the complainant, to sanction the L.T. connection applied by the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.”

2.      Bhim Singh-complainant/respondent, is the user of tubewell electric connection bearing account No.UAP678, which was taken in the name of Dalip Singh, that is, a joint land holder and family member. The complainant was paying the bills regularly. However, the UHBVNL started sending bills treating the above said connection as Non-Domestic Connection (NDS) because the electricity for the same was being supplied from Urban Feeder; instead of raising the bill under the category of agriculture purpose (AP), the UHBVNL sent bill for Rs.27,856/- for NDS category. The complainant approached the UHBVNL to rectify the bill but to no avail. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

3.      The UHBVNL in its reply stated that as per letter bearing Memo No.Ch-51/TS-17 dated May 17^th, 2012 (Exhibit R-2), it was directed that tubewell connections running from Urban Feeders be chanrged and issued the bills/prices of NDS tariff, so the complainant was rightly charged as the NDS category. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint and issued direction to the UHBVNL, as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.      The impugned order has been challenged by raising two fold arguments. Firstly, that the tubewell connection being not in the name of the complainant, he does not fall under the category of consumer. Secondly, that the complainant was rightly charged for NDS category as the tubewell connection has been given from Urban Feeder.

6.      So far as the first contention that the complainant does not fall within the domain of ‘Consumer’ is concerned, Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 needs to be taken into consideration, which is reproduced as under:-

(d)     "Consumer" means any person who -

(i)  xxxxxxx

(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly prom­ised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes”

7.      In view of the above, the complainant being the beneficiary and actual user of the tubewell connection is a consumer. So the plea of the UHBVNL in this respect is repelled.

8.      Coming now to the plea that since the tubewell connection of the complainant is getting supply from Urban Feeder therefore NDS tariff is being charged; the UHBVNL has relied upon the letter dated May 17^th, 2012 (Exhibit R-2).  On the other hand, the complainant appearing in person has relied upon Sales Circular No.US-51/2007 (Exhibit R-3), which is reproduced as under:-

“UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM

                             Sales Circular No. U- 51/2007

From

          The Chief General Manager/Commercial,

          UHBVN, Panchkula.

To

          All CEs/(OP)/SEs(OP)Xens/SDOs/op,

          JEs-I, Incharge in UHBVN.

 

          Memo No.Ch- 71/TR-95(90) AP/loose

          Dated: 29.6.07

 

Sub:  Applicability of tariff for supply to tubewell within Municipal Limits.

 

          This is in supersession of sales circular No.U-28/2007 dated 10.4.2007, wherein it was instructed that NDS tariff shall be applicable to the tubewells installed within the limit of municipal committee/ council/corporation instead of AP tariff to the existing tubewells as well as prospective tubewell connection with immediate effect and S.C. No.U-32/2007 dated 20.4.07 vide which the above instructions were withheld.

          Nigam has further reviewed the ibid circular keeping in view the feed back from the field offices and the general public and decided that the tariff applicable to the tubewell installed within the limit of municipal committee/council/ corporation shall be as per its purpose of use.

          The purpose of tubewell water use shall be got verified by taking the following documents from the tubewell consumer:

a.   Copy of Jamabandi/Girdawari/Aks Shajra as issued by Revenue authorities duly showing the type of land use.

b.   Upon submission of documents as cited above, Nigam feeder Manager shall carry out the site inspection and take photo and video of tubewell and type of land use. Care shall be taken to ensure that feeder Manager also appears in photo/video.

c.   In case, Horticulture exists at site the relevant tariff shall be applicable.

d.   In case, type of land use as shown in revenue documents is “Gair Mumkin” then NDS tariff shall be applicable.

e.   In case, the land falls in “Lal Dora” then NDS tariff shall be applicable.

f.     In case agriculture use is verified then AP tariff shall be applicable.

 

This shall be applicable both for existing and prospective tubewell connections with immediate effect.

The above instructions should be brought to the notice of all concerned for careful and meticulous compliance.

                                                                   General Manager/Comml.,

                                                          for CGM/Comml., UHBVN, Panchkula”

 

9.      It has been specifically mentioned in Exhibit R-3 that the tariff applicable to the tubewell installed within the limit of municipal committee/council/corporation shall be as per its purpose of use. It has also been mentioned that in case agriculture use is verified then AP tariff shall be applicable.

10.    The report obtained from Tehsildar, Rohtak is on file as Exhibit C-13 and depicts that the tubewell connection in question was being used for agriculture purpose. In this view of the matter, the UHBVNL could not charge NDS tariff from the complainant as the tubewell connection was being used for agriculture purpose.

11.    For the reasons recorded supra, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.1500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 29.07.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL