BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 81 of 2019
Date of Institution : 13.02.2019
Date of Decision : 28.09.2023
Gurmeet Singh, aged 44 years son of Balbir Singh, resident of village Kotli, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Managing Director, Hisar.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Ding Sub Division, District Sirsa.
3. Bimla Devi wife of Kashmir Chand son of Bag Ram son of Sabu Ram, resident of village Kotli, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR……PRESIDENT
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………...MEMBER
Present: Sh. P.K. Berwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. M. S. Gill, Advocate for the opposite parties no.1 and 2.
Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist having agricultural land in village Kotli, Tehsil and District Sirsa and is consumer of ops no.1 and 2 vide AP connection No. SK-61/0054. The complainant has got installed a tubewell in his said land and ops no.1 and 2 allotted transformer of 63 KVA and complainant got installed 30 BHP motor on his tubewell. The complainant incurred huge amount in installation of the transformer etc. That land of op no.3 is adjacent to the land of complainant and op no.3 is also having tubewell in her land and connection was released to her from the transformer of complainant which bears account No. SK-61/0100. The op no.3 is very clever lady and she in collusion and connivance with ops no.1 and 2 deposited the security of 30 BHP for her tubewell connection and installed 50 BHP motor at her tubewell which is running at the spot. It is further averred that due to installation of 50 BHP motor by op no.3, the transformer of 63 KVA could not bear the load and started to create problem i.e. bursting of fuse and non function of tubewell of complainant due to over load on the transformer. That complainant moved an application to op no.1 in this regard and requested to take immediate action against op no.3. The op no.2 checked the tubewell of op no.3 on 18.10.2018 and found load of 50 BHP motor running at the spot but op no.2 did not take any further action in the matter. It is further averred that op no.3 continued using her tubewell connection with 50 BHP motor and transfer was burnt due to heavy load. That op no.3 leased out her land to Mahinder son of Bhura Ram who was defaulter of ops no.1 and 2. That complainant also moved an application for replacement of above burnt transfer to op no.2, but op no.2 made excuse that aforesaid Mahinder son of Bhura Ram lessee of op no.3 is defaulter of Nigam and until and unless the defaulting amount of said Mahinder is not paid, till then the transformer cannot be replaced. That thereafter complainant moved another application to the Executive Engineer of the Nigam and requested to intervene in the matter and to get replaced the burnt transformer and Executive Engineer directed the op no.2 to disconnect the electric connection of op no.3 and to replace the burnt transformer at the spot. Thereafter, the ops no. 1 and 2 installed a transformer of 63 KVA at the spot. It is further averred that after installation of a new transformer, the ops no.1 and 2 restored the electric connection of op no.3 and op no.3 again started running her tubewell with 50 BHP motor on the said transformer of 63 KVA which is running at the spot although she deposited security for 30 BHP. In this manner, all the ops are in collision and connivance with each other and thereby have been causing losses to the complainant. That due to heavy load on the said transformer, the complainant could not run his tubewell properly and also could not irrigate his field due to which there was loss of 50 quintals of cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 season and loss of 60 quintal of wheat crop in Rabi 2019 crop season grown by complainant in his six acres of land and thus complainant suffered net loss of Rs.6,50,000/-. It is further averred that complainant has sown wheat crop in his six acres of land which is also very weak due to insufficient irrigation and he is expecting a loss of Rs.1,20,000/- of his wheat crop and in this manner, the total loss which the complainant has suffered is Rs.7,70,000/-. That ops no.1 and 2 are under legal and factual obligation to provide and ensure the regular and sufficient energy supplied to the tubewell of complainant but the ops no.1 and 2 even after coming to know that op no.3 has been using electricity in an illegal and unauthorized manner did not take any action against her and ops in collusion and in connivance with each other have caused losses to the complainant. The ops by their such act and conduct have been indulged in unfair trade practice and have also caused gross deficiency in service towards complainant and have also caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, ops appeared. Ops no.1 and 2 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, estoppal, mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties and suppression of true and material facts and that no consumer dispute is made out between the parties and no deficiency in service has been attributed to ops no.1 and 2 and there was no deficiency in service on the part of answering ops towards the complainant. It is also submitted that the electricity connection of complainant as well as op no.3 was conducted by the officials of the Nigam. It was found that both the connections were running as per the permissible load used for tubewell motors and it was also found that op no.3 has not installed compulsory equipment i.e. capacitor for which she was duly fined according to the norms of the Electricity Act. It is further submitted that transformers of the consumer i.e. complainant and op no.3 has been replaced by answering ops after the extension of load by complainant and op no.3. As per requirement of the complainant, the officials of the ops in discharge of their duty themselves installed the heavy transformer on the spot and now at the spot 100 KVA transformer is running and earlier was of 65 KVA. That answering ops have no personal grudge against the complainant rather they are obliging the complainant and also in order to avoid the future complications has installed heavy transformer. On merits, it is submitted that according to the load of the connection holders Nigam duly installed the transformer for running load of motors. As per the policy of the Nigam, new connections were issued to its consumers from the nearest sub station i.e. from nearby transformer which is the property of the Nigam and Nigam from time to time replaced these transformers according to the prevailing necessities and load of consumers. It is further submitted that officials of the ops of their own immediately approached the spot in order to avoid the future complications alongwith the new transformer of 100 KVA but as at that time the agricultural crops were standing there, hence the complainant asked the officials of the ops to install the transformer after harvesting of crops, hence the officials of the ops waited till the harvesting of crops and immediately just after harvesting of crops, the transformer of 100 KVA was installed on the spot and same is now running at the spot. It is further submitted that there are no hurdle in running the motor of consumers now since heavy transformer of 100 KVA has been installed and is running smoothly. That there is no collusion between the ops and complainant out of his personal grudge with the op no.3 is falsely involving the ops no.1 and 2 in the litigation. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.3 also appeared through counsel who suffered a statement that written statements filed on behalf of ops no.1 and 2 may also be read on behalf of op no.3.
4. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C15.
5. On the other hand, ops no.1 and2 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, SDO as Ex. RW1/A and copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6. OP no.3 did not lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. According to the complainant, he is running his tubewell with 30 BHP motor and tubewell connection was also released to op no.3 by ops no.1 and 2 from the transformer of the complainant. It is further allegations of complainant that op no.3 deposited the security of 30 BHP motor for her tubewell connection with ops no.1 and 2 but op no.3 in collision and in connivance with ops no.1 and 2 was running her tubewell with 50 BHP motor and as such transformer of 63 KVA could not bear the load and was burnt. The complainant has also alleged that due to heavy load on the transformer put by op no.3, the complainant could not run his tubewell property and also could not irrigate his field and has suffered loss of cotton crop of kharif, 2018 and also loss of his wheat crop of rabi, 2019 and has suffered total loss of the amount of Rs.7,70,000/-. The complainant has also alleged that ops no. 1 and 2 did not take any action against op no.3 despite his several complaints and op no.3 has been using the electricity in an illegal and unauthorized manner.
8. On the other hand, the ops no.1 and 2 have categorically asserted that on their inspection at the spot, it was found that op no.3 has not installed compulsory equipment i.e. capacitor for which she was duly fined according to the norms of the Electricity Act and the transformers of complainant and op no.3 has been replaced by ops no.1 and 2 after extension of load by complainant and op no.3. Sh. Ramesh Kumar, SDO of ops no.1 and 2 in his affidavit Ex.RW1/A has also submitted that after the harvesting of standing crops of rabi, 2019 i.e. on 01.05.2019 new 100 KVA transformer already got installed upon the connection of complainant as well as op no.3 which are running smoothly. In this regard ops no.1 and 2 have also placed on file checking report of the connection of op no.3 Ex.R1 whereby she was fined for not using compulsory equipments i.e. capacitor etc. Though complainant has alleged that he was running his tubewell connection with 30 BHP motor but however, it is proved from letter of SDO, DHBVN, Ding dated 07.03.2019 written to the complainant that on 19.07.2018 complainant also got extended his load from 30 BHP to 40 BHP. It is also proved on record from CM window action taken report EX.R5 that similarly op no.3 also got extended load of her motor from 30 BHP to 45 BHP and due to running of motors of complainant as well as of op no.3 with more load, the load of 63 KVA transformer was overloaded and as such there was requirement of installation of 100 KVA transformer but as crops were standing at the relevant time and wife of complainant refused for replacement of transformer at that time, so on the request of complainant after harvesting of crops, the transformer of 100 KVA was installed at the spot by ops no.1 and 2. So, it is proved on record that both the complainant as well as op no.3 got extended load of their motors and complainant has not uttered a single word in his entire complaint that he also got extended his load from 30 BHP to 40 BHP and has wrongly asserted that he was running his motor with 30 BHP load and has suppressed the real fact. The complainant has also failed to prove on record that op no.3 was using motor of 50 BHP instead of sanctioned load of 45 BHP. The complainant has also failed to prove on record that he has suffered any loss of his crops as alleged by him as complainant has not placed on record any documents or any supporting evidence to prove any loss of his crops and mere oral allegations in this regard are not sufficient to prove any loss to him. Moreover, it is also proved on record that on the request of complainant, the transformer of 100 KVA was installed by ops no.1 and 2 on 01.05.2019 i.e. after harvesting of crops of rabi season of 2019 and as such none of the ops can be said at any fault. The complainant also got extended load of his motor from 30 BHP to 40 BHP on 63 KVA transformer, so it cannot be said that said transformer of 63 KVA was burnt only due to running of motor of more load by op no.3. So, the complainant has failed to prove his case through cogent and convincing evidence and the complaint deserves dismissal.
9. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member President Dt. 28.09.2023
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
