Sitar Singh filed a consumer case on 25 Feb 2016 against Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/881/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 20 Apr 2016.
CORAM: Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member. Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
Present:- Mr.Varun Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Amardeep Hooda, Advocate counsel for the respondents.
O R D E R
URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:
Sitar Singh, appellant is in appeal against the Order dated 03.09.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Narnaul, whereby his complaint against DHBVNL and Anr. has been dismissed.
In brief, complainant’s father Ganeshi Lal was having an electricity connection bearing account No.SA-51-505 for a long time from the opposite parties (O.Ps.) and after the death of Ganeshi Lal, the complainant being his legal heir has been using the said electricity connection and paying the bills regularly. In June/July, 2010 due to heavy storm the electric poles supplying electricity to the tubewell got broken down, due to which the supply of the electricity to the tubewell came to a dead stop. The complainant had been repeatedly requesting the O.Ps. for effecting the necessary repairs and for erecting electric poles, but the O.Ps. failed to do the needful. In absence of electricity at his tubewell he could not irrigate his fields and he suffered a crop loss of Rs.2,00,000/-. Despite that the O.Ps. continued issuing the bills since July, 2010 and ultimately bill No.3009, dated 07.10.2011 for Rs.8482/-. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum for redressal of his grievance and for grant of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for crop loss and damages of Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and harassment etc.
According to the O.Ps., the complainant had not got changed the aforesaid electricity connection in his name and as such he was not a consumer of the O.P.s. The complainant did not intimate the O.Ps. with regard to the breaking of the poles in June/July, 2010, rather he intentionally did not deposit the bills. It was due to non payment of electricity bills by the complainant that PDCO was effected by the electricity department. The learned District Forum agreeing with the stand taken by the O.Ps. and dismissed the complaint vide order dated 03.09.2014.
Against the impugned order dated 03.09.2014, the complainant has filed appeal before us reiterating his factual submission and the grievances raised before the District forum claiming huge compensation for loss of crops.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. In nutshell, we find that the electricity connection of the complainant stands disconnected since 23.11.2011 and has not been restored so far. No doubt, the complainant has not produced any cogent evidence to prove the actual and exact crop loss suffered by him in the absence of electricity connection, yet it is a matter of common knowledge that his crops must have been damaged during the last more than four years without electricity and water. Therefore, the case of the complainant is squarely covered under instruction No.2.3 issued by the O.Ps., according to which the complainant is entitled to the relief of restoration of the electricity connecting paying the uptodate bills. Accordingly, we partly allow the appeal of the complainant by directing the O.Ps. to restore electricity connection of the complainant after he has deposited the uptodate amount of the bills issued to him so far.
February
25th, 2016
Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri,
Member,
Addl.Bench
R.K.Bishnoi,
Judicial Member
Addl.Bench
S.K.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.