BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.:304 of 2017.
Date of Instt.: 06.11.2017.
Date of Decision: 08.06.2018.
Ravinder Kumar son of Ram Singh, resident of village Bhodia Khera, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
…Complainant.
Versus
1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Fatehabad.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation Sub-Division, Sub-Urban, Dashing Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad.
3. Junior Engineer 1st Sub-Office, Dashing Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Badopal, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
…Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. M.K. Khurana, Member.
Present: Sh.Raj Kumar Panwar, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Anil Solra, counsel for the opposite parties.
ORDER:
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) with the averments that the complainant was having an electricity connection for tubewell bearing account no. SK53-2091 installed in village Chapla Mori, Tehsil and District Fatehabad in his name for agriculture purpose and the complainant was making payment of the electricity charges regularly. It is further submitted that the complainant had borne the cost of transformer and line expenses of the tubewell at the time of its installation. The said connection was released to the complainant after completion of all the formalities by the complainant to the entire satisfaction of the OPs. Therefore, the complainant is consumer of the OPs in respect of the abovesaid electricity connection.
2. It is further submitted that on account of failure of the bore of the tubewell in the month of April 2012, the said electricity connection of the tubewell was disconnected by the OPs on the request of the complainant. However, the transformer line of the abovesaid tubewell connection is still existing.
3. It is also further submitted that the complainant is also having agriculture land in his name at village Bhodia Khera and the complainant does not have any water supply for irrigation of his land. Therefore, the complainant wanted to RCO and shifting the electricity connection for tubewell installed in village Chapla Mori along-with transformer and line which was still existing in the previous bore, in his land at village Bhodia Khera. Therefore, the complainant requested the OPs to shift the said electricity connection after installing new bore of tube- well in his land at village Bhodia Khera. The complainant also requested that he is ready to make the payment of entire outstanding. The security amount and other deposits of the complainant were lying with the OPs. Upon this, the complainant was assured by the OPs that the RCO and electricity connection shall be shifted after installation of his new tubewell. Consequently, the complainant installed a new tubewell at village Bhodia Khera in the month of January 2016 and thereafter the complainant repeatedly requested the OPs for RCO and shifting of the electricity tube- well connection. The OPs initially avoided the matter on one pretext or the other and the complainant was overhauled to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,03,768/- for RCO and shifting of the electricity connection whereas the transformer and the line was still existing on the side of his previous tube- well at village Chapla Mori and the same was not shifted by the OPs in his land situated in village Bhodia Khera. The said act on the part of OPs amounts to gross negligence, the abovesaid amount was deposited by the complainant vide receipt no. 14650842 dated 20.7.2016. Thereafter, the OPs shifted the electricity connection of the complainant and in the land of the complainant situated in village Bhodia Khera.
4. It is further submitted that the complainant is entitled to get refund of the abovesaid amount of Rs. 1,03,768/- which was got deposited by the OPs in compelling circumstances along-with interest. The complainant also further prayed that he is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. Hence the present complaint.
5. On being served, the OPs appeared through their counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a joint written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus-standi and concealment of true and correct facts etc. have been raised.
6. In reply on merits, it is submitted that an electricity tubewell connection for agriculture purposes had been issued to the complainant for his agriculture land situated in Murba No. 158 Killa No. 5/1 in village Chapla Mori. The account number of the electricity tubwell connection was SK-53-2091 and load of the abovesaid connection was ten horse power. It is further submitted that for transfer of the tubewell connection from village Chapla Mori to his land in village Bhodia Khera, the complainant submitted an affidavit wherein in para no. 4 of the affidavit, it is submitted that he wants RCO of the abovesaid connection on account of failure of the bore in village Chapla Mori and further wants to shift the same in his land situated in village Bhodia Khera. It is further submitted in the affidavit that an estimate of shifting should be prepared and the estimated amount should be got deposited from him and a load of 20 horse power should be sanctioned for the new tubewell connection. It is further submitted that keeping in view the affidavit submitted by the complainant and as per norms and instructions of the Nigam a service connection book no. 1119 dated 21.7.2016, a material memo no. 1522 dated 20.7.2016 and estimate memo no. 1505 dated 19.7.2016 was issued by the OPs. It is further submitted by the OPs that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 103768/- at his own will and without any pressure from the OPs. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for refund of the abovesaid amount and any compensation from the OPs. As per request of the complainant, his tubewell connection has been shifted at village Bhodia Khera and there is no deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to the complainant. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure C-1, wherein the averments made in the complaint have been affirmed. The learned counsel for the complainant also tendered in evidence documents as Annexure C-2 to Annexure C-12. On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Kumar SDO DHBVN Sub Urban Area Fatehabad tendered his affidavit as Annexure RW1/A in support of the case of OPs. The OPs also tendered in evidence the documents as Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4 and closed the OPs evidence.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant in his arguments contended that the complainant had applied for RCO and shifting of electricity connection of tubewell installed in his agriculture land situated in village Chapla Mori to his agriculture land situated in village Bhodia Khera on account of failure of the bore. However, for a long time nothing was done by the Ops but subsequently the complainant was compelled to deposit an amount of Rs. 103768/- for RCO and shifting of the abovementioned electricity connection whereas the transformer and line was still existing at the site of the previous tubewell at village Chapla Mori. The learned counsel further contended that as per the Government Policy regarding shifting of a tubwell on account of failure of bore, the consumer has to bear the charges of dismantlement at the existing premises and expenditure of erection at new site, whereas the transformer, electric poles and line was to be shifted by the Ops from the existing premises to the another site of installation. However, in the present case the Ops did not shift the transformer, electric poles and line from the previous site of tubewell to the new site and compelled the complainant for depositing an amount of Rs. 103768/- with the Ops for shifting of tubewell connection in question. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the abovesaid act on the part of Ops amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice. The same is also in violation of the Government policy applicable in the matter. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 103768/- received by the Ops illegally. In support of his case the learned counsel for the complainant relied upon instruction no. 2.1 of the Ops regarding alteration/addition to existing connection. In support of his case the learned counsel also put reliance on the judgment dated 12.5.2015 rendered by this Forum in CC No. 83 of 2014 and the judgment dated 12.5.2016 rendered by the Hon’ble State Commission of Haryana, wherein the appeal filed by Ops against the judgment dated 12.5.2015 was dismissed.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops vehemently rebutted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant and further reiterated the averments made in the written statement filed by the Ops. The learned counsel further contended that the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs. 103768/- at his own will and without any compulsion or pressure from the Ops. The same is also evident from the affidavit Annexure R-4 submitted by the complainant, wherein the complainant has submitted that the estimate for shifting of the tubewell connection be prepared and the estimated amount be got deposited from him. The abovesaid amount has been received by the Ops perfectly in accordance with the Government policy/instructions applicable in the matter and also keeping in view the affidavit filed by the complainant. The action of the Ops in getting the abovesaid amount deposited from the complainant is perfectly in order and sustainable in the eyes of law. There is no deficiency on the part of Ops in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record. It is the case of the complainant that a tubewell connection bearing account no. SK53-2091 installed in his agriculture land situated in village Chapar Mori got disconnected in the month of April 2012 by the complainant on account of failure of bore. However, the transformer and line remained in existence at the site. It is further the case of the complainant that thereafter in the year 2016, the complainant requested the OPs to shift the abovesaid electricity tubewell connection in his agriculture land situated in village Bhodia Khera. However, the OPs kept the matter pending for a long time and later on forced the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs. 103768/- for RCO and shifting of tubewell. It is further the case of the complainant that as per the policy applicable in the present case the transformer and lines which remained in existence at the site of previous tubewell in village Chapar Mori was to be shifted at village Bhodia Khera where the new tubewell connection was to be installed. However, without following the policy of the Nigam the OP charged the amount of transformer and lines which was utilized for installation of the new tubewell connection.
11. After going through the rival contentions of both the parties and examining the policy of the Nigam applicable in the matter and other documents placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to him. The complainant has not placed any evidence or document to prove that he was compelled by the OPs for depositing an amount of Rs. 103768/- with the OPs. There is no evidence on the file to prove that the abovesaid amount was deposited by him under any protest or he had given any representation to the OPs immediately after depositing the abovesaid amount. It is also pertinent to mention here that the abovesaid amount was deposited by the complainant on 20.7.2016, whereas the present complaint has been filed by him after a lapse of about one year and four months. During this period no representation or protest has been made by the complainant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the abovesaid amount was got deposited by the OPs from the complainant under compulsion. Moreover, in affidavit Annexure R-4, the complainant has submitted that an estimate for shifting of the tubewell connection be prepared and the estimated amount be got deposited from him. Therefore, since the complainant himself has given consent for depositing the estimated amount for shifting the tubewell connection, as such now he cannot back track from his undertaking.
12. It is also the case of the complainant that as per the policy of the Nigam the amount of Rs.1,03,768/- charged by the Ops from the complainant for shifting of tubewell was to be borne by the Ops. The learned counsel for the complainant in support of the above contention has relied upon the instructions which are reproduced as under:-
I Agriculture Consumers:
1.(a) Shifting of tubewell connection from one site to another in the event of acquisition of land by HUDA or other Central/ State agencies:
In the light of revised Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy 2010 of Haryana Government the shifting of tubewell connection would be done by overriding priority subject to the fulfillment of following conditions and recovery of cost from the consumers as per para (3) below:
- “Prior indicating acquisition of land by HUDA or other State agencies.
- The connection at the changed/ new location will be released / shifted on HT from Rural AP Feeder and will be metered supply.
- The expenditure incurred on account of dismantlement at the existing premises and on account of erection at new site will be borne by the consumer.
- New A&A form is to be submitted.
- Certificate to the effect that all pending dues are cleared irrespective of the fact that connection is connected or disconnected.
- Shifting of tubewell connection from one site to another is permitted on the production of certificate of legal heir from competent authority/ court in case of death of original applicant with an affidavit by the new applicant owning the responsibility against any legal complications at later stage.
- The consumer would be entitled to alternate tubewell connection (s) in this category either in his un-acquired land or in the agricultural land that he may purchase elsewhere in the State within a period of two years of the Award.
- Alternate connection would be provided within a period of three months of the application of the land owner.”
A perusal of the abovementioned instructions reveals that the case of the complainant is not covered under the aforesaid instrucitons. The said instructions are applicable in the case of shifting of tubewell connection in the event of acquisition of land by HUDA or other Government Agency whereas the case of the complainant is shifting of the tubewell connection on account of failure of bore.
In fact the instructions applicable in the case of complainant are reproduced as under:-
2. Shifting of the tubewell connections on account of salinity of water, failure of bore or for any other reason can be allowed anywhere in the jurisdiction of DHBVN subject to the following conditions:
i) The ground water cell of irrigation department shall certify the salinity/ non-suitability of water in respect of the tubewell to be shifted in case the same has been sought on the grounds of salinity of water. The suitability of water in respect of new site where this tubewell is required to be shifted could also be certified by the Ground Water Cell.
ii) Shifting would also be allowed in case of failure of bore of the tubewell or any other reason to which the shifting has been requested.
iii) The shifting would be permitted in case of both the connected as well as disconnected tubewells subject to the conditions mentioned in para i) & ii) above.
iv) The land which may be situated anywhere in the DHBVN jurisdiction, should be in the same name in which the original tubewell is situated. The shifting of tubewell will be allowed without any change in name.
v) The consumer shall not be a defaulter on account of payment of any electricity bill.
3. Charges for change of site: The following charges shall be recoverable for the change of site:
i) Where the consumer is disconnected, the RCO Fee as per SMI-2.3. Plus shifting charges as per (ii) below.
ii) Shifting charges @ Rs.12500/- per HT/LT pole of span 70 meters or part thereof excluding 20 mtrs. Cable. However, credit for Rs.1000/- for every HT/LT span of 70 mtrs. Dismantled shall be given.(SC 12/2012).
13. A perusal of instruction no. 2 which are applicable in the case of the complainant reveals that there is no provision that the shifting charges of a tub well connection shall be borne by the OPs. As per instruction no. 3 the charges are to be recovered from the consumer for changing of site. Therefore, as per instructions of the Nigam the OPs are entitled to recover the charges for shifting of the tubewell connection from one site to another.
14. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant is not applicable in the present case as the facts of the present case are different and distinguishable from the judgment relied upon by the complainant. In the judgment dated 12.5.2015, the complaint was regarding renewal of the tubewell connection at the same site whereas the present complaint pertains to shifting of the tube well connection from one village to other village. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present complaint is without any merits and as such the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Raghbir Singh)
President (M.K.Khurana)
Distt. Consumer Disputes Member
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
