BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

Complaint Case No.08 of 2017.

Date of Instt.:  10.01.2017.

Date of Decision:  18.05.2017.

Jas Ram son of Puran Singh resident of Dhani Chhatarian Tehsil Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

...Complainant

                     Versus

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad Tehsil through Executive Engineer, Operation Division, DHBVN, Fatehabad District Fatehabad.

2. Sub Divisional Officer, Operation, Sub-Division, City,   Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                                                   ..Opposite parties

                   Complaint U/S 12 of CP Act

Before:       Sh.R.S.Panghal, Presiding Member.

                   Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

Present:       Sh.Jitender Thakker, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh.Dushyant Gera, counsel for opposite parties.

ORDER

                    The complainant has brought the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, called, the Act).  

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is having domestic electricity connection vide account No.CH-1D/409 and he has been making the bills regularly. Said electricity connection was being released by the OPs from A.P.Feeder Dhani Chhatarian and as per Sales Circular No.D-64/2013 at serial No.9 it has been mentioned that ‘The shifting of supply of Dhanis from AP Feeder to Rural Domestic Feeder will be executed on first come first serve basis in case of departmental execution & seniority to this effect shall be maintained separately as Sub-Divisional level’. It has been further  averred that the complainant had moved an application to the OPs for shifting of supply of his dhani from AP Feeder to Roral Domestic Feeder and the estimate in this regard was also prepared. As per estimate the complainant had deposited 5 % of the estimated cost i.e. Rs.7342/- with the OPs vide book No.0375 receipt No.55 of 20.09.2012. It has been further averred that more than 51 months have passed but till date the connection of the complainant has not been shifted from AP Feeder to Rural Domestic Feeder despite the fact that the complainant has visited the OPs many a times. The complainant was/is ready to complete all the formalities but the OPs have not paid any heed to his requests. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Annexure C1, documents Ex. C2 to Ex. C5.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; suppression of material facts; cause of action and locus standi. It has been submitted that the complainant had not regularly visited the OPs with any alleged request qua shifting of his supply of Dhani from AP Feeder to Rural Domestic Feeder. 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 Sub-Divisional Officer as Annexure R1.

     4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

5.                There is no dispute that complainant was having electricity connection being released by the OPs from A.P.Feeder Dhani Chhatarian and as per Sales Circular No.D-64/2013 at serial No.9 it has been mentioned that ‘The shifting of supply of Dhanis from AP Feeder to Rural Domestic Feeder will be executed on first come first serve basis in case of departmental execution & seniority to this effect shall be maintained separately as Sub-Divisional level’.  The complainant had requested the Ops for shifting of his connection from AP Feeder to Rural Domestic Feeder and had also deposited 5 % of the estimated cost i.e. Rs.7342/- with the OPs vide book No.0375 receipt No.55 of 20.09.2012 (Ex.C2). Perusal of Ex.C4 reveals that the complainant had been shown at Sr.No.10 in the list of detail of deposit estimate ofr the month of 09/2012 in respect of City S/Divn.DHBVN, Fatehabad GH 57.301. According to the complainant, after completion of all the formalities, the opposite parties did not shift his connection from AP Feeder to Rural Domestic Feeder after receiving 5 % of the total estimated cost despite passing of more than 4 years and 10 months. Perusal of circular No.D-64/2013 of their department reveals that 22.5% amount was to be deposited from MPLD Fund, 22.5% amount was to be deposited by State Govt. HRDF, 5 % amount was to be deposited by the consumer and 50 % of the expenditure was to be borne by the Nigam. Since the complainant had already deposited his 5 %, therefore,  we are of the considered view that there is no legal hitch to shift the  electricity connection of the complainant from AP Feeder to Rural Domestic Feeder. The opposite parties cannot contend that they did not receive the funds from MPLAD Fund and from State Govt. from HRDF. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. Versus Zora Singh & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos.4910-4981 of 2005 decided on 11.8.2005 has held that “It is also idle to contend that the Board was cash-starved owing to any faulty decision on the part of the State. If it suffered losses owing to any direction issued by the State pursuant to any policy decision adopted by it, the same being an internal matter between the State and the Board, the prospective consumers cannot suffer therefore.” It was also held in the above referred judgment that “Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Section 79(1)- Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Sections 22 and 24- Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (g)- Electricity Board getting security deposits for supply of electrical energy without having made itself ready to supply electrical energy- Board failed to supply the electricity as per period stipulated in their regulations- Board unjustly enriched itself with the money deposited by applicants- It is deficiency of service- Board directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% and compensation of Rs.5000/-.”

7.                As per law laid down in above mentioned judgments,  opposite parties were bound to comply its Sales Circular No.64/2013 but they not only failed to shift the connection of the complainant from AP Feeder to Rural Domestic Feeder  but made excuse that connection cannot be released due to insufficiency of funds and this excuse of the opposite parties, is not sustainable.  Consequently, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to shift the connection as per instruction/scheme applicable at the time of submitting the application and further to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand). This order should be complied within 45 days failing which opposite parties will also pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.   A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.  File be consigned after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated:18.05.2017

                                                                   (R.S.Panghal)

                                                                   Presiding Member

(Ansuya Bishnoi)                                 Distt.Consumer Disputes

      Member,                                                 Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.