BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No.216 of 2016.
Date of Instt.: 17.08.2016.
Date of Decision: 09.03.2017.
Gurpreet Singh son of Kalyan Singh resident of Bhundarwas Tehsil Ratia & District Fatehabad.
..Complainant
Versus
1.Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Xen/G.M. (Op) Fatehabad District Fatehabad.
2.SDO (OP) DHBVN City, Ratia.
..Opposite parties
Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Sh. Davender Kaswan, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Satpal Sethi, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs).
- Brief facts of the present complaint are that Hardev Singh, grandfather of the complainant had obtained a tubewell electric connection bearing account No.BA53-259911 under AP Category which was being used by the complainant by paying regular electricity charges. It has been further averred that due to low voltage problem the complainant enquired about dedicated transformer scheme for his above said tubewell connection in the year 2004 from OPs and on their assurance qua providing/installing of new transformer he had applied for transformer under dedicated scheme of the Nigam by depositing Rs.10,000/- on 03.08.2014. It was also assured to the complainant by the Nigam that the transformer would be installed as per turn key basis and as per seniority list. It has been further averred that the complainant visited the OPs many a times but every time he had been asked to wait for his turn. The complainant had deposited remaining amount of Rs.1604/- with the Nigam on 02.08.2007 as per their instructions but despite that the Ops had not installed transformer on the above said tube well. It has been further averred that the Nigam has installed transformer to the consumer who had applied after the complainant. The complainant has requested the OPs to install the transformer and also got served legal notices upon them but to no avail. It has been further averred that request for installation of transformer was made in the year 2004 but till today no transformer has been installed, therefore, the complainant has continuous cause of action to file the present complaint. Hence, this complaint. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Annexure C1 and documents Annexure C2 to Annexure C8.
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint reply taking several preliminary objections such as maintainability, suppression of material facts, cause of action, locus standi, estoppal and barred by limitation. It has been submitted that the complainant had never deposited any amount of Rs.10,000/- with the Nigam under any Dedicated Scheme. It has been further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complainant has also not deposited an amount of Rs.1604/- with the Nigam on 02.08.2007. No assurance was ever given to the complainant qua installation of the transformer. Other allegations made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Kumar, SDO, Operation as Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1.
4. Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OPs reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is user/beneficiary of the tubewell electric connection bearing No.BA53-259911 AP Category obtained by his grandfather and when there was low voltage problem then request for installation of transformer under Dedicated Scheme was made by depositing Rs.10,000/- vide receipt No.225 dated 03.08.2004 (Annexure C2). Learned counsel for the complainant further argued Rs.1604/- was also deposited with the Nigam vide receipt No.27629 dated 02.08.2007 but despite that the Nigam has not installed the transformer, therefore, the present complaint is maintainable and the complainant has continuous cause of action to file the present complaint. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance of case laws titled as Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Mukandi Lal III (2007) CPJ 51 (NC), Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Tejinder Pal Singh and another 2003 (2) CLT (PSCDRC), CSEB, Raigarh & Anr. Vs. Kapoor Chand Aggarwal III (2007) CPJ 317 and Dim Enclave & Anr Vs. Naresh Batham decided by Hon’ble National Commission in RP No.2984 of 2013 on 30.04.2014.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs argued that the complainant had never deposited amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1604/- with the Nigam under any Dedicated Scheme for installation of transformer, therefore, question of any deficiency in service on their part does not arise at all. Learned counsel for the Ops further argued that the present complaint is time barred and is not maintainable.
8. The complainant in support of his case has tendered his affidavit Annexure C1 and also tendered document Annexure C2 (receipt No.225 dated 03.08.2004), Annexure C3 (receipt No.27629 dated 02.08.2007), Annexure C4 (electricity bill issued in the name of grandfather of the complainant), Annexure C5 (postal receipt), Annexure C6 (legal notice), Annexure C7 (death certificate of Hardev Singh) and Annexure C8 (death certificate of Kalyan Singh).
9. The Ops have resisted the complaint on two grounds i.e. complaint is barred by limitation and they have not received any payment qua installation of transformer on the above said tubewell electric connection in question. Both the pleas taken by the OPs are not tenable because the complainant has placed on file receipts Annexure C2 and Annexure C3 on the case file to show that his grandfather had deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1604/- with the Nigam on 03.08.2004 and 02.08.2007. Original receipts of Annexure C2 and Annexure C3 were produced in the court during arguments. Though the Ops have denied receiving of any payment from the depositor but they have failed to produce any evidence on the file to prove this version. It is worthwhile to mention here that the electricity department i.e. OPs Nigam is legitimate authority duly constituted under the Power Department having the norms, instructions, Sales Circulars, Sales Manuals under the guidance of provisions of Indian Electricity Act in order to keep and maintain the various affairs of the Nigam, therefore, being a government headed institution it is presumed that it will work for the welfare of the consumers/public at large but in the present case it appears that it is taking double standard and is bent upon to avoid the matter in question on one pretext or the other. It is established on the case file that the Nigam had received an amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1604/- under Dedicated Scheme and this fact is also evident from the receipt No.225 dated 03.08.2004 (Annexure C2). It is strange that the Nigam on one hand had received the amount from the depositor and on the other hand it has denied receiving of payment and further kept the matter pending for uncertain period despite bothering the benefit of the consumer. The OPs in its reply nowhere has stated that Annexure C2 & Annexure C3 have not been issued by them or the same are forged. A perusal of Annexure C2 clearly reveals that an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been received by OPs for Dedicated Scheme. There is no reason to disbelieve Annexure C2 & Annexure C3. It seems that the OPs have not come with clean hands and are suppressing the correct facts from this Forum. The act and conduct of the Ops are against the policies made by the Government for the upliftment of the agriculture sector in India because after passing almost 13 years the Nigam has not redressed the grievance for which the complainant has approached to this Forum. No decision regarding installment of transformer has been taken. Neither the claim of the complainant has been accepted nor rejected. The amount deposited by the complainant for installing of transformer has not been returned and the same is pending with the OPs. Therefore, this Forum is of the considered view that the present complaint is within limitation and is very well maintainable and the complainant has continuous cause of action to file the present complaint and the action of the OPs amount to unfair trade practice
. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as Gujarat Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Grahak Hit Surax Mandal & Anr. 1(2006) CPJ 312 wherein Hon’ble GSCDRC, Ahmedabad has held that Contention-Complaint filed beyond limitation period, time barred, not acceptable- Complainant in waiting list, required to wait his turn for grant of connection- Continuing cause of action, complaint not time barred- Fees paid for obtaining contention, Complainant prospective consumer-Complaint allowed.
9. Keeping in view the above discussion as well as the legal position laid down in Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Mukandi Lal, Dim Enclave & Anr Vs. Naresh Batham & Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Tejinder Pal Singh (supra) we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that the OPs are deficient in providing service to the complainant, therefore, the present complaint deserves acceptance. It is ordered accordingly. The Ops are directed to install the transformer under the Dedicated Scheme for which the depositor had deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1604/- with them vide receipt Annexure C2 & Annexure C3 on 03.08.2004 and 02.08.2007 respectively. The Ops are further directed to pay 10,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.2500/- as litigation charges. This order should be complied within a period of 30 days from receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the opposite parties. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court:
Dated: 09.03.2017
(Raghbir Singh)
President (Ansuya Bishnoi) Distt.Consumer Disputes Member Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
