Haryana

StateCommission

A/1017/2015

BADAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

RAMENDER CHAUHAN

23 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1017 of 2015

Date of Institution:        30.11.2015

Date of Decision :         23.12.2015

 

 Badan Singh s/o Sh. Ganga Ram, Resident of Village Tiwala, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

                   Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Managing Director, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar.

2.      Executive Engineer (OP) Division Charkhi Dadri, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

3.      Sub Divisional Officer (OP) Sub Division Atela Kalan, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Atela Kalan, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, Bhiwani. 

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of complainant is directed against the order dated 15^th October, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.442 of 2013, for enhancement of compensation.  

2.      Badan Singh-complainant/appellant, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that he irrigates his crop in 20 acres of land from tubewell connection bearing account No.T153-2057. On August 10^th, 2013, due to some technical problem in the transformer, the electric meter of his tubewell was burnt and the electricity supply to his tubewell was stopped. He complained to the opposite parties but to no avail. It was alleged that due to non-supply of the electricity, he could not irrigate his crop and suffered loss worth Rs.4.00 lacs.

3.      The opposite parties in their reply stated that on the complaint of the complainant, the employees of DHBVNL checked the T/F on August 27^th, 2013 and the same was found in working condition and the electricity supply was running smoothly. There was no loss of the crops, as alleged by the complainant. In fact a checking was conducted at the tubewell of the complainant on 20.12.2012 and he was imposed penalty of Rs.23,820/- for committing theft of the electric energy. Denying the allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum observed that there was no damage to the crop of the complainant but the opposite parties were deficient in service for the delay in restoring the electric supply to the tubwell of the complainant. Thus, the opposite parties were directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation.  

5.      The complainant has sought compensation on account of damage to his crop by relying upon the report of Local Commissioner dated 5^th November, 2013. The report nowhere suggests that there was any damage to the crops of the complainant. No other cogent evidence in support of complainant’s claim has been produced. In absence of documentary proof, it cannot be said that the complainant is entitled for enhanced compensation for his crops.

6.      Having taken into consideration facts of the case and the evidence available on the record, this Commission is of the view that the complainant has been granted adequate compensation on account of delay in restoring the electric supply to his tubewell. Thus, no case for interference is made out.

7.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

 

Announced 23.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL