BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.421 of 2013
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 10.09.2013
DATE OF ORDER: .03.2016
Smt. Sheela Devi aged 58 years widow of Shri Rohtash son of Shri Ramnath, resident of village Manehru, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
…………… Complainant
VERSUS
- The Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vidyut Nagar, Hisar through its MD.
- The Xen ‘OP’ Division Charkhi Dadri, DHBVNL Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
- The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division Sanjarwas, DHBVNL Sanjarwas, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri Harminder Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Shri R.S.Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present complaint are that he applied for Tubewell connection for agricultural purposes and deposited the security in the sum of Rs. 27030/- on 12.05.2009. It is alleged that after that the Ops directed the complainant to deposit the expenses of connection i.e. Transformer, wires and poles etc. and in compliance with the directions to OP the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 81000/- on 29.11.2010. It is alleged that the OP assured him to give connection within a period of six months from the date of deposit of security. The complainant and his son several times visited the office of the OP for the purpose of connection but the OP paid no heed. The OP issued a bill dated 11.08.2013 for the sum of Rs. 217/- without installing the wires, meter and transformer at the spot. It is alleged that due to the negligence of the OP he sustained a loss of Rs. 17.00 lacs. It is alleged that he also moved an application for the appointment of Local Commissioner who submitted his report which confirms the damages sustained by the complainant. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement alleging therein that after deposition of estimate amount, tender was issued to M/s Super Power Construction Hisar for installation of New Electric Construction Hisar for installation of New Electric Connection of applicant. It is submitted that after completion of work meter was sent to Dadri Lab for passing and connection account no. PD-51-109 was given and after installation of meter supply was released on dated 28.06.2013. It is submitted that connections under AP Category are released as per seniority. It is submitted that wrong news was published in News Paper Dainik Jagran regarding non connection of applicant. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-20 alongwith Ex. CW1/A to Ex. CW1/E.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record Annexure R1 alongwith supporting affidavit.
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. He submitted that the Ops installed the electricity connection at the premises of the complainant on 6.11.2013, but since the installation of the electricity connection no bill for the consumption of electricity has been issued by the Ops.
7. The counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of their reply. He submitted that the complainant manipulated the signature of Amit Kumar, ALM and the premises of the complainant where the electricity connection has been installed is defaulting premises and as per rules no fresh connection can be released in the defaulting premises.
8. The complainant has specifically denied the allegations of the Ops regarding manipulation of the signature of ALM Amit Kumar and submitted that Amit Kumar, ALM had demanded Rs.500/- as illegal gratification from the complainant and the complainant has refused to pay the same. The counsel for the complainant contended that the premises of the complainant are separate from the premises of defaulting person Dhanpat, who is father-in-law of the complainant. In support of his contention he referred the certificate of Sarpanch Annexure C8, Affridavit of Dhanpat Annexure C10 and affidavit of complainant Annexure C9.
9. The Ops have not produced the affidavit of ALM Amit Kumar to prove its allegations regarding the manipulation of the signature, nor the affidavit of any official who had verified the spot regarding defaulting premises. The Ops have failed to adduce any cogent and corroborate evidence in support of their contention. On the other side the complainant has produced the certificate of Sarpanch that the complainant is living separate from his father-in-law Dhanpat, also affidavit of Dhanpat, and copy of ration card where the name of Dhanpat is not mentioned.
10. Taking in to account of every aspect of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to issue the bills for the consumption of electricity since the installation of electricity connection to the complainant without any surcharge or penalty and the complainant is directed to pay the previous bills within three months from the date of issue of the bills. The Ops are further directed to issue current consumption bills regularly to the complainant. It is made clear that the Ops shall be at liberty to take for the recovery of its due against Dhanpat as per provision of law. No order as to costs.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:31.8.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi)), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member.
