BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 202 of 2016                                                                         

                                                          Date of Institution         :    23.8.2016

                                                          Date of Decision   :    31.8.2017.

Bagichan Singh, aged about 49 years son of Shri Balwant Singh, resident of village Abutgarh, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. The Executive Engineer, Operation, Sub Urban Division, DHBVN, Sirsa.

2. Sub Divisional Officer, operation, Sub Division, DHBVN, Rania, District Sirsa.

  ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………………… MEMBER

          SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.   

Present:       Sh. Inderjeet Singh,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. P.D. Gupta, Advocate for opposite parties.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant in brief is that he is an agriculturist and is consumer of the opposite parties in respect of tubewell connection No.51030-AP which is installed in the agricultural land of the complainant situated in village Abutgarh, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. That the complainant had applied for release of a tubewell connection and moved an application and completed the requisite formalities of the Nigam. The complainant deposited Rs.1875/- on 11.8.2015 for tubeweel connection. But in order to get the tubewell connection early, he deposited an amount of Rs.1,42,500/- with the Nigam on 21.10.2015 under the Tatkal Scheme of the Nigam. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.2100/- on 9.2.2016 on account of meter and cable charges. All such amounts were deposited by the complainant as per the directions of the concerned officials of the Nigam. It is further averred that thereafter the tubewell connection was released by the op’s Nigam on 5.5.2016. At that time, the officials concerned had demanded some amount from him being bribe but the complainant being law abiding citizen refused to pay the same. Therefore, the concerned officials developed some grudge against the complainant. That before release of the above said tubewell connection to the complainant the concerned officials extended the load on the tubewell of one consumer Smt. Kanchan Kanwar on 7.4.2016 on the transformer from which the new connection was given to the complainant. The connection was given to the complainant from the transformer of 100 KW but due to extension of load on the tubewell of aforesaid Smt. Kanchan Kanwar, the load on this transformer was extended to more than 100 KW, which has affected the electricity supply to the tubewell of the complainant. It is further averred that as per the standard practice and rules of the Nigam, the connection was to be given to the complainant at a distance of 1000 feet from the transformer i.e. at pole no.4 from the transformer but the complainant was given the connection from pole no.5 from the transformer. Due to this reason, the tubewell of the complainant is not getting proper voltage of electricity and due to low voltage, the tubewell cannot run and operate, resultantly the complainant has not been able to sow the paddy crops in his fields. As per the estimate prepared by the Nigam authorities, the complainant was to be given the connection from fourth pole and accordingly the amount was got deposited from him but he was given the connection from fifth pole. It is further averred that complainant had given an application on 27.4.2016 to the Nigam in this regard and met the ops several times and requested for installing the new transfer of the capacity of more than 100 KW and to make adjustment for giving the connection to the complainant from the fourth pole but ops continued putting the complainant off on one pretext or the other. The complainant also got issued a legal notice dated 30.6.2016 upon the ops but to no effect. That due to low voltage at the aforesaid tubewell of the complainant, the tubewell motor of the complainant was burnt and resultantly the complainant had to incur thousands of rupees on this account. The voltage at the tubewell of complainant remains between 150 to 200 while in fact, the required voltage to run the tubewell is 400. The complainant had to irrigate his land by running the tubewell by use of generator and had to spend heavy amount and all these expenses were borne by the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The very purpose of getting the tubewell connection under the above said Tatkal scheme by spending huge amount was defeated due to the act and conduct of the ops. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; suppression of material facts and jurisdiction etc. On merits, while denying the contents of the complaint, it is submitted that connection to the complainant was given as per law and rules/ sales circulars/ instructions of the Nigam and also keeping in view the prevailing circumstances and public interest. In fact the voltage of electricity used by complainant has caused no problem to the complainant. It is further submitted that whenever the complainant met the officials of the ops, he was told that ops have already got checked the transformer by the incharge J.E. and he found that another transformer of 63 KVA was needed to be got installed and an estimate for the installation of additional transformer was passed to the tune of Rs.1,23,732/- vide estimate no.RN-74/2016-17 and fact for installation of additional transformer was entered in the list of overloading transformer at serial No.179. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.

3.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of one Balwinder Singh Ex.CW2/A, copy of mutation Ex.C1, copies of receipts Ex.C2 to Ex.C5, copy of postal receipt Ex.C6, copy of legal notice Ex.C7 and copy of bill Ex.C8. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.R1, copy of letter dated 27.5.2016 Ex.R2 and copies of estimates Ex.R3 to 5 and copy of rough sketch Ex.R6.

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

5.                It is undisputedly admitted fact between the parties that complainant is consumer of the opposite parties in respect of tubewell connection No.51030-AP which is installed in the agricultural land of the complainant. It is also proved fact on record that before getting tubewell connection released, the complainant had deposited all the requisite fees i.e. Rs.1875/- on 11.8.2015, Rs.1,42,500/- on 21.10.2015 under the Tatkal scheme of the Nigam and Rs.2100/- on 9.2.2016 on account of meter and cable charges and also completed other formalities and thereafter connection was released on 5.5.2016 to the complainant by ops. Though the complainant has leveled allegations in the complaint that he was supposed to get connection from pole no.4 whereas he was given connection from pole no.5 as a result of which the length of the cable is more than the cable which was to be installed from pole no.4 and moreover concerned officials of the ops had extended the load of tubewell connection of one consumer namely Kanchan Kanwar on 7.4.2016 as a result of which the complainant is not getting regular supply to his tubewell connection rather he is getting the uninterrupted supply which caused many times damages to the motor of his tubewell.

6.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops has conceded to the fact that it is the right of the consumer to get regular supply to his connection uninterruptedly but however, it is not prerogative of the complainant to direct the ops to give him connection from pole no.4 or he cannot restrain the ops from extending the load of other consumers who are also supposed to get the facility as per rules. But it is an undisputed fact that like other consumers present complainant is also entitled to get uninterrupted supply from the ops for which he is paying regularly to the ops. So by not providing regular supply to the connection of the complainant, the ops have definitely caused prejudice to the right of the complainant and there is deficiency of service on the part of ops.

7.                In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint of the complainant and direct the ops to give regular supply to the connection of the complainant uninterruptedly which is a necessity for the complainant to irrigate his agricultural land. We also direct the ops to pay a composite amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant. This order should be complied with by both the ops jointly and severally within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced in open Forum.                                           President,

Dated:31.8.2017.                  Member     Member      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                      Redressal Forum, Sirsa.