DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.175 OF 2012.
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 04.04.2012.
DATE OF ORDER: .29.01.2015
Dharambir Singh aged 75 years son of Shri Jodha Singh, caste Rajput, resident of village Baund Kalan, tehsil Baund Kalan, district Bhiwani.
………Complainant.
Versus
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Managing Director, Vidhyut Nagar, Hisar.
- The SDO, DHBVN Limited, Sanjarwas, tehsil Ch. Dadri, District Bhiwani.
- The Xen, DHBVN Limited, Ch. Dadri, District Bhiwani.
………Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,
BEFORE: Shri Rajesh Jindal, President,
Shri Balraj Singh, Member,
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member,
Present: Shri M.P. Tanwar, Advocate for complainant.
Shri R.S. Sharma, Advocate for Opposite Parties.
ORDER:-
RAJESH JINDAL, President:
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is the owner and in possession of the half share of the agricultural land comprised in Khewat Nos. 525/456 measuring 15 kanals according to jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 vide connection bearing no. B-33, account no. AU 51-0002. The complainant alleged that he installed a tube-well in the said land and the electric wires from the transformer are in broken condition and are badly damaged, as a result of which, the complainant could not run the tube-well without light. The complainant had made several complaints to the SDO, Xen and other higher authorities but no action was taken. The complainant alleged that without the electricity the crops sown in the fields have badly damaged. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. Opposite parties on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that Pardeep Kumar JE also mentioned in his report this fact that crops could not be damaged due to non irrigation, however, same would be damaged due to more presence of water because site in question was adjoining with the canal. It is submitted that the complainant is not a regular payee and as per record theft was deducted in his house. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed against respondents with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record affidavit Annexure CW1/A, documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 and Photos Annexure C/A to Annexure C/D.
4. In reply thereto, the Ops have filed Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-5 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned Counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that due to inaction on the part of the Ops, the complainant has suffered huge losses due to damage to the crops for want of irrigation.
7. Learned Counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complainant was caught for the theft of electricity at his house and the penalty was imposed on the complainant. The complainant paid the penalty amount hence no case of theft of electricity was registered against him. As a result of said action of the Ops against the complainant, the complainant has filed this false complaint against the Ops. He further submitted that the field of the complainant is adjoining to the Kanal and the soil of that area is having maximum moisture. He stressed that all the allegations of broken electric wires and loss to crop of the complainant are false and baseless.
8. In the context of the arguments of the parties we have examined the record. The perusal of complaint reveals that the relevant dates have not been mentioned by the complainant in his complaint for his allegations of broken electric wires, the period for which the complainant could not irrigate his field, which crop was irrigated and the extent of damage and how he suffered the alleged heavy losses. The pleadings of the complainant are vague and meritless. No cogent evidence has been adduced by the complainant in support of his alleged loss to crops and other allegations. The complainant has failed to brought in our notice any material to substantiate his contention. The complaint of the complainant is meritless and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 29.01.2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member.
