Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/69/2023

Sonu - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVN Ltd, through its Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI. 

                                                          Complaint No.: 69 of 2023.

                                                         Date of Institution: 11.05.2023.

                                                          Date of Order: 30.05.2024.

Sonu son of Shri Jai Singh, resident of village Rawaldhi, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.

                                                                   …..Complainant.

                    Versus

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Hisar through its Managing Director.
2. Executive Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban Sub Division, Charkhi Dadri.

…...Opposite Parties.

 

                             COMPLAINT UNDER THE

     CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -      Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

                  

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Shri Devender Parmar, Advocate for the OPs.

 

ORDER:-

 

                   Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having some agricultural land measuring 2½ Acres, Khewat No.1000/877, Khatoni No. 1229, situated within revenue estate of village Rawaldhi, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.  The complainant had applied for Agricultural electricity connection and deposited a security of Rs. 2500/- on 30.11.2018 and also deposited Rs. 30,000/- as tube well advance vide receipt No.B32465010 dated 01.04.2019 with the OPs.  The OPs had issued a notice memo No.4381 dated 28.10.2019 demanding a sum of Rs.10,80,752/- as estimated cost along with the formalities.  The OPs have issued wrong demand notice dated 28.10.2019.  The complainant is entitled to get electricity connection from electricity line of village Rawaldhi to Samaspur, as the same is nearest to the complainant’s site for connection and on the said line there are already 10-12 tube well connections.  The OPs are adamant not to release the connection from the said line and illegally demanding a huge amount for releasing the connection to the complainant from a far situated electricity line, for which there is no justification.  It is averred that the complainant had requested the OPs many times for the release of tube-well connection from the electricity line of village Rawaldhi to Samaspur, but the OPs are putting off the matter on one pretext or other and adamant to get deposited the amount of Rs.10,80,752/-, which is on higher side for a small farmer.  The OPs have failed to release the electricity connection to the complainant from the nearest electricity line despite depositing of required security amount and tube well advance and agreeing to deposit cost for the release of tube-well connection from nearest Rawaldhi to Samaspur line, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                On appearance, OPs had filed contested written statement and admitted that the complainant has applied for the release of tube-well connection.  It is averred that the memo No.4381 dated 28.10.2019 was rightly issued demanding Rs.10,80,752/- as estimated cost.  It is further averred that as per electricity Rules, other formalities were also fulfilled as per memo, but complainant did not fulfill the condition of circular No. D-6/19 and other conditions.  It is further averred that several electricity poles and wires yet to be installed for AP connection for complainant and thus above estimate amount is mandatory for the release of electricity connection.  It is also averred that complainant is not entitled to get connection from electricity line of village Rawaldhi to Samaspur.  It is further averred that the OPs are ready to release the connection after fulfilling all the formalities and after depositing the estimate cost of Rs.10,80,752/-.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant to prove his case has placed on record the duly sworn affidavit of the complainant as Ex. CW1/A, affidavit of one Krishan Kumar as Ex. CW1/B, affidavit of Rajender Singh as CW1/C, affidavit of Sanjay as CW1/D and documents Ex. C1 to C3 and closed the evidence. 

4.                 On the other hand, the OPs have failed to place on record any evidence in support of their case other than written statement and the evidence of the OPs has been closed vide order dated 14.3.2024.

5.                We have heard ld. counsels for both the parties at length and gone through the case file very carefully.

6.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint and contended that OPs have wrongly & illegally not releasing the tube-well connection to the complainant from electricity line of village Rawaldhi-Samaspur, which is nearest to complainant’s fields for connection and on the said line there are already 10-12 tube well connections, despite deposit of the security fee Rs. 2500/- on 30.11.2018 and tube well advance of Rs. 30,000/- on 01.04.2019.  He further contended that the OPs have issued a demand notice dated 28.10.2019 for Rs.10,80,752/- being estimate for release of tube well connection from far away electricity line instead of nearest electricity line, which is wrong, illegal and liable to be set aside.  He further contended that the complainant is still ready to pay all the charges, if required to deposit further for any other fee for releasing the tube well connection from the nearest electricity line of village Rawaldhi to Samaspur, already existed nearest to the fields of complainant and meant for farmers for tube well connections.

7.                On the other hand, ld. counsel for OPs reiterated the contents of the written statement. Ld. Counsel for the OPs has contended that complainant failed in depositing the amount of demand notice i.e. Rs.10,80,752/- being estimated cost for releasing tube well connection to him.  He further contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. 

8.                After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint in hand deserves acceptance, because there is deficiency in service due to non release of tube-well connection to the complainant even after lapse of considerable time of more than 5 years.  It is admitted fact that the complainant had applied for tube-well connection in November, 2018.  It is not disputed by OPs that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs. 2500/- on 30.11.2018 toward security deposit and Rs.30,000/- on 01.04.2019 towards tube well advance for release of tube-well connection.  It is also not disputed by the OPs that there are already existed 10-12 tube well connections from the line of village Rawaldhi to Samaspur.  The OPs have not placed on record Circular No. D-6/19 (referred in their written statement) stating that the conditions of the said circular were not fulfilled.  Further the plea taken by the OPs that the complainant is not consumer in terms of Consumer Protection Act is not acceptable, as the complainant has applied for tubewell connection by deposit of security fee Rs.2500/- and tube advance of Rs.30,000/- and the same were accepted by the OPs.  Hence, the complainant is a consumer in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  The complainant and other person in their affidavits have stated that Rawaldhi-Samaspur line was laid down only for farmers for giving electricity supply to tube well and getting tube well connection from that line is complainant’s right.  Now the only question arises, whether the OPs department was justified in issuing demand notice for the tube well connection from a far away electricity line instead of electricity line nearest to the fields of the complainant.  The sought answer is “No”.  The demand of OPs to deposit Rs. 10,80,752/- vide Momo No. 4381 dated 28.10.2019 towards estimated cost of giving connection, while line nearest to the fields of the complainant, is already available, is unjustified and unreasonable.  So, it is clearly admitted fact that there are already exists tube well connections from electricity line of village Rawaldhi to Samaspur.  Moreover, the OPs have failed in leading any cogent and convincing documentary evidence for not releasing the tube well connection to the complainant from the nearest electricity line of village Rawaldhi to Samaspur.

9.                From perusal of record, it is clear that the complainant has fully proved his case by placing on record affidavits of complainant  and other framers viz. Shri Krishan Kumar, Shri Rajender Singh & Shri Sanjay as Ex. CW1/A to CW1/D and certain documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C3 and also affidavit of one Ranbir Singh son of Shri Mool Chand.  Moreover, it is admitted fact that the OPs have accepted the application and amount of security deposit and tube well advance from the complainant for tube well connection.  So, after considering all the above mentioned important facts, we come to the conclusion that the OPs are liable for errors & negligence committed on their part and their

 

failing to provide service and protect the interest of the complainant, a farmer and genuine consumer.  In our view, when complainant has deposited the security fee of Rs.2500/- and tube well advance fee of Rs.30,000/-, it is the duty of the department to release the tube well connection within a reasonable time from the line nearest to the fields of complainant.  Moreover, the OPs have not given any reason for not agreeing to the request of the complainant for giving connection from Rawaldhi-Samaspur line nearest to the fields/site of the complainant.  Further the complainant is still ready to deposit any other fee required by the OPs for releasing of tube-well connection from the nearest electricity line of village Rawaldhi to Samaspur.  So, it is clearly proved on record that the complainant has put his all efforts for the release of tube-well connection, but the OPs delayed the same and demanded exorbitant amount of Rs. 10,80,752/- for estimated cost for the tube well connection, while line is available in close vicinity of the fields of the complainant.  Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

10.              In the light of above mentioned facts, the complainant is entitled for compensation on account of mental & physical harassment for deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we allow the complaint and set aside the demand notice bearing memo No.4381 dated 28.10.2019 for Rs.10,80,752/- with followings directions to OP: -

i)        To release the Tube-well connection to the complainant after issuing a fresh demand notice for releasing the tube well connection from the nearest electricity line of village Rawaldhi to Samaspur.

ii)       To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to deficiency in service & mal trade practice on the part of OPs.

iii)      To pay Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only) as counsel fee as well as the litigation charges.

          The compliance of the order shall be made within 45 days from the date of the order.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.