BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.7 of 2013
Date of Institution : 3.1.2013
Date of Decision : 8.8.2016
Chandermukhi d/o Shri Bhani Ram, r/o village Chilkani Dhab, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa.
……Complainant. Versus.
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Sirsa through its Managing Director at Hisar.
- Executive Engineer, Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam,’Op’ Sub Urban Division, Ellenabad, distt. Sirsa.
- Sub-Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam,Operation Sub-Division, Ellenabad, tehsil and distt. Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA ………………….…PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL…MEMBER.
Present: Sh.M.M.Pareek Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Suresh Mehta, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
It is the case of complainant that she applied for a new tubewell electric connection for her agricultural land vide application no.37586-AP and deposited the requisite security with Op no.3. Thereafter, he deposited the amounts of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.80,000/- respectively as demanded by the Ops and thus the complainant completed all the requisite formalities. The complainant got installed the tubewell at the spot and also got raised the construction of tubewell kotha, switch, starter etc. etc.. Vide letter no.2188-22591 dt. 25.7.2011, now the Op no.3 has directed to supply option 3-Tier approach to release AP connection and also to deposit the full cost of the Transformer for release of connection, which is wrong, illegal, unjust, improper because she had applied for the said electric connection under Tatkal Scheme prior to issuance of Sale Instruction no.10/2011 and thus, the said letter is liable to be withdrawn. The complainant approached the ops several times and requested to release the electric connection, but they did not pay any heed to her request. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Upon notice, Ops contested the case by filing their written statement. It is pleaded that the complainant applied for tubewell connection against requisite amount of Rs.80,000/- for 40 Span HT on13.4.2011 and later on she was informed vide memo no.75 dt. 11.1.2012 that the tubewell connection are to be issued to the consumers who had deposited Rs.20,000/- alongwith Rs.7000/- per span upto October, 2010 and now, the ops has issued latest sales circular D-12/2011 and 10/2011 vide which the connection seekers have to give their respective consent under three tier scheme and the said required consent was not submitted by the complainant. The complainant as well as the officials of the Nigam are duty bound to act as per the latest Sales circular. Hence, there is no fault on their part rather it is the complainant who has not complied with the memo no. 75 dt. 11.1.2012.
3. In order to prove her case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1-her own affidavit, Ex.C2-Memo no.2188-22591 dt. 25.7.2011, Ex.C3 and Ex.C4-receipts of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.80,000/- respectively, whereas, Ops have tendered in evidence Ex.R1-affidavit of Sh.O.P.Bishnoi, SDO and Ex.R2-copy of estimate.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
5. Deposits of various amounts by the complainant are admitted. The grievance of the complainant is that on 25.7.2011 Op no.3 has issued a letter whereby she was required to supply option 3-Tier approach to release AP connection. Complainant challenged this letter saying it quite wrong, illegal, unjust and improper because she had applied under Tatkal scheme of the Ops prior to issuance of the letter dt. 25.7.2011. On the other hand, it is the case of the Ops that the department is a legitimate body enacted under the Electricity Act and Nigam is guided under the provisions of the Act time to time. In the present case, latest Sale Circular no.D-23/11 is applicable and Ops sought her consent strictly in accordance with the provisions of Sale circular. It is further averred that there is no deficiency or delay on the part of the Ops and her name was at Sr.no.18 of the Seniority list. It is also on the record through the affidavit Ex.R1 that connection in question has already been released to the complainant and the same is running at the spot.
6. After hearing both the sides and going through the available evidence on record, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency on the part of the Ops and complainant failed to bring home the allegations of the complaint. Hence, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 8.8.2016 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
