BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.: 109 of 2018
Date of Institution: 11.04.2018
Date of order: 30.10.2019
Smt. Sushila Rani wife of Shri Banwari Lal, resident of village Madh, Tehsil Ratia District Fatehabad
….. Complainant.
Versus
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad through its Executive Engineer, Operation Division
- Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation Sub-Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Ratia, District Fatehabad.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Present: Sh. Rajesh Sharma, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Dushyant Gera, counsel for the OPs.
ORDER:
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties with the averments that he is a farmer by occupation and is having agriculture land in Village Madh, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad and livelihood of the family of the complainant is dependent upon the earning from the agriculture produce.
2. It is further submitted that the complainant is having a tubewell electricity connection bearing account no. AL53/2153 installed in village Madh and keeping in view of the policy of Government of Haryana, the complainant moved an application before the Ops for extension of load vide application No. 33682 AP dated 15.05.2015 and the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.5,450/- with the Ops and it was assured by the Ops that no amount will have to be deposited by the complainant beyond the amount which have already been deposited by him for extension of his load.
3. It is further submitted that the Ops issued a notice bearing memo No. 1304 dated 21.06.2017 to the complainant and thereby calling upon him to deposit with the Ops a sum of Rs.96,400/- for extension of load and the complainant was also threatened through the above said letter that in case of failure on the part of the complainant to deposit the above said amount the application submitted by the complainant will be cancelled without any notice. The complainant on account of urgent and immediate requirement of tubewell water in his standing Paddy crop was forced to deposit the amount of Rs.47,900/- with the Ops vide receipt dated 16.08.2017. Thereafter, the load of tubewell electricity connection of the complainant was extended by removing the small transformer of the complainant from his fields and a higher capacity transformer was installed but instead of new transformer a repaired transformer was installed whereas the complainant was charged for a new transformer.
4. It is further submitted that the other farmers who had moved an application before the Ops for extension of load have not been charged anything by the Ops for extension of their tubewell load and as such the complainant has been discriminated by the Ops without any cause and reasons and without any fault on the part of the complainant.
5. It is further submitted that the above said act on the part of the Ops amount to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant. The complainant has further prayed that the present complaint may kindly be accepted and the Ops may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.47,900/- deposited by him with the Ops alongwith interest at the rate of 18% from the date of payment till its realization. The complainant has further prayed that an amount of Rs.50,000/- may also be awarded in his favour as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
6. On being served OPs appeared through counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action and concealment of true and correct facts etc. have been raised.
7. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the complainant had applied for extension of load to the Ops vide application dated 15.05.2015 and an amount of Rs.5,450/- was also deposited by the complainant with the Ops. It is further submitted that at the time of moving of the said application, there was no rule for installation of the transformer on the expenses of the respondents/Nigam. As per letter dated 12.06.2017 issued by SE/Commercial DHBVN, Hisar, the Ops issued letter dated 21.06.2017 to the complainant and through the above said memo the complainant was directed to deposit the estimated cost within 30 days with the Ops, so that extension of load can be regularized. Thereafter, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.47,900/- on16.08.2017 with the Ops and after deposit the above said amount a new transformer in the fields of the complainant was installed. It is further submitted that the transformer has been installed as per the terms and conditions and rules and regulations of the Nigam. The cost of 25KVA transformer which was removed was deducted from the estimated cost. It has been specifically denied that the complainant has been discriminated in installation of new transformer. It is also further submitted that the complainant is not entitled for refund of Rs.47,900/-. It is also further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of Ops in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is without any merits and liable to be dismissed.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Exhibit CW1/A along-with the documents as Exhibit C-1 to Exhibit C-7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence documents as Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-7 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents placed on record. It is the case of the complainant that he is having a tubewell electricity connection installed in his agriculture land in village Madh. It is further the case of the complainant that in view of the policy of the Government of Haryana the complainant moved an application before the OPs for extension of the load on 15.5.2015 and an amount of Rs.5,450/- was deposited by the complainant with the OPs and at that time it was assured by the OPs that no further amount will have to be deposited by the complainant. Thereafter, on 21.6.2017 a notice was received by the complainant from the OPs and vide the abovesaid notice the complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.96,400/- with the OPs for extension of the load and it was also threatened through the abovesaid notice that in case of failure on the part of the complainant to deposit the abovesaid amount, the application submitted by the complainant for extension of the load will be cancelled. Therefore, the complainant on account of urgent and immediate requirement of tubewell water for his standing paddy crop was forced to deposit the amount of Rs.47,900/- with the OPs vide receipt dated 16.8.2019. Thereafter, the load of the tubewell electricity connection of the complainant was extended by removing the small transformer of the complainant installed in his fields and a higher capacity transformer was installed. Moreover, in place of new transformer a repaired transformer was installed by the OPs.
10. It is further the case of the complainant that the other farmers who had moved an application for extension of the load with the OPs have not been charged anything by the OPs for extension of their tubewell load. Therefore, the complainant has been discriminated by the OPs without any valid cause and reason and without any fault on the part of the complainant. It is further the case of the complainant that the abovesaid act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in rendering service to him and as such he is entitled for refund of Rs.47,900/- alongwith interest and compensation.
11. On the other hand, it is the case of the OPs that the complainant had applied for extension of the load vide application dated 15.5.2015 and an amount of Rs.5,450/- was deposited by the complainant with the OPs. It is further the case of the OPs that at the time of moving of the said application there was no rule for installation of transformer on the expenses of the OPs/Nigam. Therefore, in view of letter dated 12.6.2017 issued by the SC Commercial DHBVN Hisar the complainant was directed to deposit the estimated cost within 30 days with the OPs vide letter dated 21.6.2017, so that the extension of the load can be regularized. Thereafter, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 47,900/- on 16.8.2017 with the OPs and a new transformer in the fields of the complainant was installed. It is further submitted that the new transformer in the fields of the complainant has been installed perfectly as per terms and conditions and rules and regulations of the Nigam applicable at the relevant time. The cost of 25 KVA transformer which was removed was deducted from the estimated cost. It is further the case of the OPs that the Nigam have acted perfectly in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Nigam and the complainant has not been discriminated.
12. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents placed on record. It is not disputed that vide letter bearing memo no. 1304 dated 21.6.2017 the complainant was asked by the OPs for depositing an amount of Rs.96,400/- for extension of load. It is also not disputed that in compliance of the abovesaid letter the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.47,900/- with the OPs on 16.8.2017. The complainant has not placed on record any document or evidence to prove that the abovesaid amount was deposited by him under protest. From perusal of the letter dated 12.6.2017 issued by SE Commercial DHBVN Hisar to SE Operation DHBVN Hisar, it is evident that in case the augmentation of transformer is required for affecting of extension of load applied by AP consumer under non-VDS period, the augmentation is to be carried out at the cost of the applicant as per the provisions of Duty to Supply Regulation 2016. Hence, the augmentation of the transformer for extension of the load by the AP consumer under non VDS period should be at consumer cost. In view of the letter dated 21.6.2017 and in view of the letter dated 12.6.2017, we are of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.49,800/- received by the OP from the complainant for extension of the load is perfectly in accordance with the guidelines and norms of the OPs. In case any consumer has been given the abovesaid benefit of extension of load without charging any amount from him or contrary to the guidelines of the Nigam in that eventuality the complainant is not entitled as a matter of right for the same benefit as it is a settled principle of law that equality cannot be claimed in illegality. We, therefore, do not find any deficiency on the part of Ops in rendering service to the complainant in the present case. The present complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Dated:30.10.2019
(Raghbir Singh) President (Jasvinder Singh) District Consumer Dispute
Member Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
