DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.191 OF 2014.
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 19.07.2014.
DATE OF ORDER: .09.01.2017
Mahipal son of Shri Sher Singh son of Sh. Sheo Karan, resident of village Mandholi Khurd, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani (consumer of electricity connection no. JH-53-3189.
………Complainant.
Versus
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam having its Head Office at Vidhut Nagar, Hisar through its Managing Director.
- The Executive Engineer, Sub Urban Division, DHBVN, Bhiwani.
- The Sub Divisional Officer, OP Sub Division DHBVN, Siwani Mandi District Bhiwani.
………Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,
BEFORE: Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.
Present: None for complainant.
Shri K.R. Sangwan & Sh. Rishipal Parmar, Advocates for Opposite Parties.
ORDER:-
RAJESH JINDAL, President:
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had obtained tubewell connection bearing No. JH-53-3189 for irrigating the land since long and paid the electricity charges regularly. It is alleged that the distribution transformer through which the tubewell connection was released, was stolen due to the negligence on the part of the officials of the Nigam on 30.05.2012 and intimation was given to OP no. 3 in writing on 31.05.2012. It is alleged that he requested the OP no. 3 to replace the stolen distribution transformer to facilitate the complainant to irrigate his land to save the crops of khariff 2012. It is alleged that the complainant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 9398/- being 20 % amount of the cost of the replace distribution transformer. Thereafter the OP Nigam allotted the distribution transformer and the same was replaced on 22.12.2012. It is alleged that in the absence of electricity, the tubewell installed in the land of the complainant could not be generated and as a result thereof, he could not provide irrigation facility to the sown crops of khariff 2012 as a result thereof, the entire sown crops of khariff 2012 was brunt and dried. It is alleged that the complainant sown the subsequent crops of Rabi 2013, because of rains fall during that period, but he could not maintain the sown crops of Rabi 2013 for want of not providing the irrigation in the absence of electricity. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, harassment and humiliation. 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 OP no. 3 after receiving information of theft of T/F form the complainant forwarded it to the police station Siwani for lodging complaint. It is submitted that OP no. 3 replaced the T/F of the complainant after completion of formalities by the complainant without any delay. It is submitted that the complainant deposited the requisite amount of 20 % amount of costs of stolen T/F after a long delay, so the delay was on behalf of complainant and not on behalf of Ops. It is submitted that there is no fault on behalf of the Ops for replacement of T/F of complainant but it is complainant himself who is responsible for the delay of replacement of T/F. It is submitted that the complainant had never been ready and willing to deposit the 20 % costs of the stolen T/F and he filed an application after delay of 8 months for depositing this amount and deposited the amount. 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 counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-23 along with supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for Ops has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-11 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the opposite parties.
6. Learned Counsel for the complainant after tendering documents in evidence on 28.03.2016 and the case was adjourned for arguments. Thereafter, none appeared on behalf of the complainant to argue the case, despite several adjournments till date. We proceed to decide the case on merits on the basis of the material on the file and after hearing counsels for the Ops.
7. Learned Counsels for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. They submitted that as per the sale circular no. D-22/2012, the 20 per cent cost of the distribution transformer has to be deposited by the concerned consumer in case of theft of the distribution transformer before the replacement. They submitted that the complainant deposited 20 per cent cost of the transformer vide receipt dated 19.10.2012 Annexure R-6 and the transformer was installed on 22.12.2012. They submitted that there is no delay on the part of Ops in replacing the transformer. They further submitted that the dispute raised by the complainant regarding the bill dated 10.07.2012 is baseless because the said bill does not pertain to the period when the transformer was stolen.
8. We have perused the relevant record. As per the contention of the complainant the transformer in question was stolen on 30.05.2012 and the FIR of the same was registered on 17.06.2012. The application for the deposit of 20 per cent cost is dated 19.10.2012 which is Annexure C-20 wherein an order has been made on behalf of the Ops to deposit Rs. 9,398/- being 20 per cent cost of the transformer. The complainant has contended that due to the delay on the part of the Ops to install new transformer against the stolen transformer, the crops of the complainant for want of irrigation burnt and dried and has claimed the compensation of rupees more than 4 lacs. We have perused the Farad Jamabandi Annexure C-22 and Khasra Girdawari Annexure C-23, which is in the name of three persons Smt. Chandro, Umed Singh and Mahipal. The present complaint has been filed by Mahipal. The Khasra Girdawari Annexure C-23 does not reflect any loss to the crops.
9. The complainant has also challenged the bill dated 10.7.2012 issued by the Ops. The Ops have submitted that the said bill has been issued for the consumption of the electricity. The complainant has failed to adduce cogent evidence regarding the loss of his crops as alleged by him in his complaint.
10. Taking into account every aspect of the case, we do not find any substance in the complaint of the complainant regarding the loss of his crops. However, the Ops are directed not to charge any amount from the complainant for the period when the transformer was stolen and till the installation of new transformer. If any amount has already been charged by the Ops for the said period they are liable to adjust the said amount in the future bills of the complainant. With these observations, the complaint of the complainant is disposed of. 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:09.01.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta)
Member.
