DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.442 OF 2013.
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 03.10.2013.
DATE OF ORDER: .15.10.2015
Badan Singh son of Shri Ganga Ram, resident of village Tiwala, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. ………Complainant.
Versus
- Managing Director, DHBVNL, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar.
- Xen (OP) Division Charkhi Dadri, DHBVNL, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
- SDO, (OP) Sub Division Atela Kalan, DHBVNL, Atela Kalan, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, Bhiwani.
………Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,
BEFORE: Shri Rajesh Jindal, President,
Shri Balraj Singh, Member,
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member,
Present: Shri Harminder Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Shri K.R. Sangwan, Advocate for Opposite Parties.
ORDER:-
RAJESH JINDAL, President:
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant has sown crops in 20 acres of land vide connection bearing no. TI53-2097. The complainant alleged that on 10.08.2013 due to technical default in transformer the electricity supply has been stopped and due to this the Tubewell of complainant could not function hence the crops sown in the field of complainant has been destroyed. The complainant further alleged that due to the fault in transformer the electric Tubewell Meter also burnt and for that purpose an application dated 27.08.2013 has been given by the complainant to the opposite party but they did not repair the Transformer of the complainant and sustained a loss of Rs. 4.00 lacs. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. Opposite parties on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has made false complaints in series for changing his damaged T/F although on checking the T/F was found in good working condition. It is submitted that on 27.08.2013 the employees of the Ops checked the T/F on receiving his complaint in this regard but the T/F was found in working condition and the supply found running smoothly. It is further submitted that no damage to crops caused due to any damage of T/F as alleged. It is submitted that the complainant has concocted a false story of damaged T/F by teasing on account of theft of electricity detected in his premises and he started filing false complaints. The complainant at first filed an application on 27.08.2013 to the effect that his T/F on T/W is not working since 10.08.2013. It is submitted that a checking was carried out in the premises of the complainant on 20.12.2012 and a penalty of Rs. 23820/- was imposed for the theft of electricity detected during this checking. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed against respondents with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-45 & Photos Annexure 1 to Annexure 7 along with supporting affidavits.
4. In reply thereto, the Ops have filed Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-2 & Annexure R-4 to Annexure R-14.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned Counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint and he also filed the written arguments. He submitted that due to the technical defect in the transformer, the supply of electricity to the Tubewell of the complainant stopped on 10.08.2013. The complainant repeatedly made complaints to the Ops to repair the defective transformer and restore the supply to the Tubwell of the complainant. He referred the complaints dated 27.08.2013, 13.09.2013 and 23.09.2013. He submitted that the complainant made complaint on 09.10.2013 to the Xen for the repair of the transformer. He further submitted that the Ops are liable to pay the compensation for the loss cause to his crops due to the delay in replacing the defective transformer by the Ops.
7. Learned Counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complainant has concocted the whole story just to extort money from the Ops and this complaint is vendetta for the action taken by the Ops by checking the premises of his son vide LL-I dated 20.12.2012 Annexure R-9. In support of his contention, he also referred the report dated 04.09.2013 Annexure R-2 of Raj Kapoor lineman and letter dated 20.09.2013 Annexure R14 of Laxmi Narain AFM. He further submitted that in fact the transformer was working till 10.10.2013. On 10.10.2013 after checking, the transformer was found defective and first intimation report Annexure R-1 was submitted and the transformer was replaced on 17.10.2013.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The counsel for the complainant drawn our attention to the letter dated 03.09.2013 Annexure 45 of the Ops. He submitted that had the transformer been working properly then the SDO/Ops in his letter dated 03.09.2013 Annexure C-14, addressed to the complainant in response to his complaint dated 27.08.2013, would have mentioned that transformer is working properly but the Ops had asked the complainant to pay the arrears of electricity bill to take further action. He submitted that from the contents of said letter of Ops it is clear that the transformer was not in working condition when the said letter dated 03.09.2013 was issued by the Ops to the complainant. He further submitted that the reports dated 04.09.2013 and 20.09.2013 Annexure R-2 and R-14 respectively have been got prepared by the Ops from their employees.
9. We are agree with the contention of the counsel for the complainant that if the transformer would have been in working condition then the SDO of Ops must have mentioned this fact in his letter dated 03.09.2010 issued to the complainant in response to the complaint dated 27.08.2013 of the complainant. Further, the Ops have not produced the affidavits of lineman and ALM who have written Annexure R-2 and R-14,to prove the reports that the transformer is in working condition.
10. Taking the facts in totality, we have come to this conclusion that the Ops have taken about 2 months time to replace the damaged transformer and the restoration of the supply to the Tubewell of the complainant.
11. Now next question arises for our condition to what amount of compensation, the complainant is entitle. The counsel for the complainant referred the report of local commission dated 05.11.2013 to claim compensation for the loss to his crops. From the perusal of said report, it is revealed that nothing has been mentioned about the extent of loss to the crops nor the area which was inspected by the local commission and expected loss to the complainant. The counsel for the Ops submitted that the local commission at the time of inspection of the field of the complainant not called the Ops. No cogent evidence has been adduced by the complainant regarding the extent of loss to his crops due to the non supply of electricity to his Tubewell. Therefore, on this count we hold that the complainant has failed to adduce cogent and coborative evidence to the extent of loss to his crops. However, we hold that the Ops are guilty of deficiency in service for the delay in restoring the supply to the Tubewell of the complainant by replacing the transformer. On this count, we award a lump sum compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant against the Ops. The Ops are directed to recover the said amount from the salary of defaulting officials for the delay in replacing the damaged transformer. No order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 15.10.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member.
