BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, REWARI.
Consumer Complaint No: 329 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 20.6.2011.
Date of Decision: 31.3.2015.
Principal Kendriya Vidhalaya Konsiwas, Rewari through S.P.Yadav IInd Principal Kendriya Vidhalaya Konsiwas Rewari, Tehsil and Distt. Rewari.
…….Complainant.
Versus
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through Sub divisional officer, Operation Sub Division, Sub Urban Jhajjar road, Rewari, Tehsil and Distt. Rewari,
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through Executive Engineer, Rewari, Tehsil and Distt. Rewari,
- S.E. Operation Circle, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Narnaul Distt. Mohindergarh.
- Kisan Electric Store Court road, opposite side Bijli board Kosli through Dinesh Kumar Authorized Dealer Tehsil Kosli Distt. Rewari.
…...Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act
Before: Shri Raj Kumar ………. …..………..PRESIDENT
Shri Kapil Dev Sharma…………………MEMBER
Present : Shri Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Jaswant Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties
No. 1 to 3.
Opposite party no.4 exparte.
ORDER
Per Raj Kumar President
The complaint is filed by the Principal of Kendriya Vidhalaya Konsiwas Rewari alleging that the school was being
supplied electricity by a rural feeder (Sanghwari Feeder). On account of poor supply of electricity, the education of the students was suffering. Keeping in view the future of students that their study do not suffer, a request was made to the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to supply the electricity through city feeder. Rs. 5,55,500/- was also deposited for doing the needful by the school. However, despite deposit of the above said amount, on account of technical hurdles, the line could not be shifted in a short time. As it was not possible for the school to wait for 5/6 months, on request, the deposited amount was refunded. However, on the advice of opposite parties no.1 and 2, respondent no.4 was contacted to do the needful. However, it is alleged that opposite party no.4 fraudulently used cheaper and inferior material which resulted in a lot of inconvenience to the school as the condition of electric supply did not improve; hence this complaint.
2) Opposite parties no.1 to 3 in the reply filed jointly stated that since the complainant required the execution of work immediately, he was advised to get the work done from opposite party no.2 the authorized contractor of the Nigam as per the estimate and so, on his request, the deposited amount of Rs. 5,55,500/- was refunded after deducting one and half percent. It is further alleged that the alleged work has been executed by opposite party no.4 and not by the answering opposite parties. All other contents have been denied.
Opposite party no.4 in the reply filed averred that it carried out the work as per the estimate received from the
department in which all the materials have been used upto the entire satisfaction of the Nigam authorities. The work done has been inspected by the M&P staff of the Nigam and they found the work satisfied. It is also admitted that the answering respondent had received a sum of Rs. 5,47,167/- from the complainant on account of shifting of the connection as per the estimate supplied by the Nigam authorities i.e. opposite parties no.1 to 3 and all the materials and poles were erected as per the estimate of the Nigam. In the end, it is averred that there is no negligence on its part as the SDO of the Nigam inspected the material and M&P was found OK .
3) We have heard both the counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case available on the file thoroughly.
4) During the course of arguments, Shri Jaswant Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties no.1 to 3 gave a statement that complainant has got shifted the electric supply from opposite party no.4 but it defaulted in discharging his responsibility. However, opposite parties no.1 to 3 got the line changed to provide proper supply of electricity to the school. Complainant also admitted that proper electric supply was given to school by opposite parties no. 1 to 3 but opposite party no.4 was negligent and he used inferior quality of cable. Opposite party no.4 did not lead any evidence and it opted to remain exparte.
5) It is not disputed that the main grievance of the complainant stands redressed by opposite parties no. 1 to 3. Now the question remains regarding the compensation. It is not disputed that once a proposal was made for supply of electricity from city
feeder from opposite parties no.1 to 3, but it did not materialize as it was likely to take long time. The money deposited by the school was also refunded. Then school contacted opposite party no.4 to do the needful who allegedly used inferior material causing lot of inconvenience to the school. This assertion is also supported by the affidavit. There is no rebuttal to the contrary as the opposite party no.4 has not led any evidence. There is nothing on record to show that all the opposite parties no.1 to 3 had connived with opposite party no.4 to give poor electricity for wrongful gain. Thus, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if compensation of Rs. 40,000/- is awarded to the complainant school for harassment.
6) In view of the above discussion, complaint is allowed . The complainant is allowed compensation of Rs. 40,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5500/- against opposite party no.4 to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the awarded amount shall fetch penal interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Ordered accordingly.
Announced
31.3.2015.
President,
Distt. Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Rewari.
Member,
DCDRF,Rewari.
