BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 6 of 2018
Date of Institution : 2.1.2018
Date of Decision : 16.10.2018
Harbachan Singh, aged about 39 years son of Shri Babu Singh, resident of village Takhatmal, Tehsil and District Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its M.D. Vidyut Sadan, Hisar.
- Executive Engineer, OP, D.H.B.V.N, Dabwali, District Sirsa.
- S.D.O Operation Sub Division, D.H.B.V.N., Kalanwali, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA……………….. PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Abhishek Jain, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. K.K. Relan, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is a farmer having land in village Takhatmal, District Sirsa. The complainant has installed tubewell in his fields for irrigation of his land, which is only source of his livelihood. The complainant is consumer of ops. It is further averred that complainant has applied for getting electric connection for his tubewell to the ops which was registered at Sr. No.66813-AP under Tatkal Scheme (self connection), so electric connection may be issued to the complainant immediately and without any further delay. As per directions of the Nigam, the complainant had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- vide receipt No.1726/20 dated 17.9.2015 as security and the complainant was assured to refund the said security amount to the complainant. That the op-Nigam also directed the complainant to deposit Rs.1,000/- and Rs.10/- which were deposited by him vide receipt No.1724/71 and 70 respectively dated 15.9.2015 to the Nigam. It is further averred that for issuance of electric connection, estimate was prepared by the ops and they directed complainant to deposit full and final amount of Rs.55,000/- under the said scheme for getting electric connection, which was also deposited by the complainant to the ops- Nigam vide receipt No.1851/96 dated 9.12.2015. In this amount, the op-Nigam has received all the charges of erecting electric poles, transformer, wires and all other material for supplying electric connection to complainant. The complainant has brought/ loaded-unloaded electric goods from one place to another place on his own expenses. It is further averred that thereafter the electricity connection was supplied to the complainant under A/C No.TK61/131 and the complainant is using the electricity for running his tubewell and also for irrigating of his land. It is further averred that it is relevant to mention here that more than 2000 electric connections were issued by the op-Nigam but now Nigam has issued notices/ memos to about 70-80 persons with malafide intention to harass and humiliate the farmers including the complainant. The complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.1,00,000/- which was deposited by the complainant to the op-Nigam and he approached the op no.3 to refund the above said amount, but the op-Nigam has issued memo No.3344 dated 26.9.2017 to the complainant with the directions to deposit Rs.60,320/- to the Nigam within seven days otherwise this amount shall be put into the account of complainant. This memo has been supplied by op no.3 only on 1.12.2017 which is wrong and incorrect, against law and facts, against the provisions of electricity rules as well as Act and not binding upon the complainant and same is liable to be set aside and quashed in toto. That the complainant approached and requested the ops to admit his claim and to refund the above said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest and to withdraw the above said memo no.3344 dated 26.9.2017 but all in vain and the ops have refused to admit his claim. That the act and conduct of the ops comes under the ambit of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice due to which complainant is suffering from serious harassment, mental tension etc. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; concealment of true and material facts and no deficiency in service etc. On merits, it is submitted that it is correct that complainant has applied for getting the electric connection of tubewell before the op/nigam vide application no.66813-AP under Tatkal scheme. It is also correct that the complainant had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- before the nigam but it is wrong to say that the complainant had deposited this amount as a security and it is also wrong to say that the complainant was assured to refund the said amount. It is further submitted that it is relevant to mention here that as per sales circular no.30/2015 for release of tubewell connection under tatkal facility, the tubewell connection are being released to the applicants who had applied upto 31.12.2012 as per provisions of sales circular no.D-12/2012 and sale circular no.D-30/2015 under the tatkal facility, the application would be processed expeditiously on payment of Rs.one lac over and above the charges/ cost to be levied as per sales circular no.D-12/2012. Hence it is wrong to say that the complainant had deposited this amount as a security. The complainant had deposited this amount under tatkal scheme as per sales circular no.30/2015 which was non refundable. It is further submitted that the estimate to release the electric connection of the complainant prepared by the nigam to the tune of Rs.1,15,320/- but the complainant deposited the initial amount of Rs.55000/- before the nigam instead of Rs.1,15,320/-. As per sales circular no.D-12/2012 sr. no.5(a) if on a new T/F the number of connections to be released is exactly 3, then the consumer will be asked to pay Rs.30000/- and Rs.12500/- per span each (b) if on a new T/F the number of connections to be released is exactly 2, then both the consumers will be asked to share equally the total cost incurred for release of connections (c) single connection per transformer where the consumer meets the full cost of release of the connection i.e. the line and T/F cost.
It is further submitted that the estimate cost of the tubewell connection of the complainant was/is Rs.1,15,320/- but the complainant deposited only Rs.55,000/- before the nigam. The Nigam issued the notice/ memo No.3344 to the complainant for depositing the remaining amount of Rs.60,320/- which is legal and genuine. It is further submitted that as per the internal audit department half margin report, Rs.60,320/- is still due against the complainant and regarding this amount, a notice bearing no.3344 dated 26.9.2017 issued to the complainant to deposit this amount before the nigam within seven days otherwise this amount shall be put into the account of complainant. The notice issued to the complainant is correct and genuine and issued as per audit report and as per sales circular. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents. Ld. counsel for complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant as Ex.CW1/A, copy of memo no.3344 dated 26.9.2017 Ex.C1, copy of receipt Ex.C2, copy of receipt of Rs.55,000/- Ex.C3, copy of receipt of Rs.1,000/- Ex.C4 and copy of receipt of Rs.10/- Ex.C5. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops has tendered affidavit of Sh. Jeet Ram SDO Ex.R1, copy of memo no.3344 dated 26.9.2017 Ex.R2, copy of service connection order Ex.R3, copy of affidavit Ex.R4, copies of estimate Ex.R5 to Ex.R7, copy of rough sketch Ex.R8, copy of consent letter Ex.R9, copies of applications Ex.R10, Ex.R11 and copy of memo no.2648 dated 28.10.2015 Ex.R12.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that complainant had availed a tubewell connection under tatkal scheme and before installation of the connection, the complainant was called upon to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as security which was to be refunded by the ops after installation of the connection. Further the complainant was asked to pay handsome amount towards the costs of the installation of the tubewell connection. The ops have neither refunded amount of security nor have given the details of the costs of the tubewell connection nor have supplied the copy of the estimate on the basis of which the cost of the installation of the tubewell connection was to be assessed and approved by the ops. It has also been contended that the copy of estimate which has been placed on record by the ops does not bear the date, month and the year. It is no where mentioned that as and when this estimate was prepared by ops, nor officials of the ops had got physically verified at the spot qua the consumption of all these articles, costs of which has been mentioned in the estimate which clearly prejudices the rights of the consumer/ complainant. The demand raised by the ops on the basis of memo is illegal, unrecoverable and against law and facts and same is liable to be quashed.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops has strongly contended that the complainant has tried to mislead this Forum by putting false and fabricated facts. It is a proved fact that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited by complainant as a tatkal scheme fee which is evident from the copy of payment receipt and the same was not refundable as complainant has availed connection under the tatkal scheme. It has also been contended that due estimate was got prepared by ops before installation of the tubewell connection and this fact is very much within the knowledge of the complainant. Due process was followed by the concerned officials before preparing this estimate and release of the tubewell connection under tatkal scheme. These are only lame excuses on the part of complainant in order to avoid payment and balance amount of the cost of the installation. It has also been contended that complainant had also furnished a consent letter by which he had agreed to deposit cost of the installation for AP connection as per sales circular no.D-12/2012. The amount of arrears/ balance of cost of installation is legal and valid and same is recoverable from the complainant.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record carefully. It is undisputed fact between the parties that complainant has availed the tubewell connection facility from the ops under tatkal scheme and requisite formalities for the release of the connection were adopted by the complainant as well as officials of the ops. It is also undisputed fact that connection was released to the complainant under the scheme.
8. During the course of arguments, perusal of the payment receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- Ex.C2 clearly reveals that payment of Rs.1,00,000/- was made by the complainant on account of security of tatkal scheme which appears to be non refundable and this fact has not been denied by learned counsel for complainant during the course of arguments. So first relief claimed by complainant qua release of this amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is hereby declined.
9. The second contention of learned counsel for complainant is qua issuance of direction to the ops to withdraw the recovery memo by which an additional demand of Rs.60,320/- has been made. The perusal of the evidence of complainant reveals that complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and placed on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5. The memo Ex.C1 reveals that a sum of Rs.55,000/- was deposited by the complainant at the time of installation of the connection and remaining amount of Rs.60,320/- has been claimed by the ops as balance amount. This fact also finds corroboration from the payment receipt Ex.C3 by which ops had received an amount of Rs.55,000/- on account of MDS, though this receipt does not reveal that it was full and final payment towards the costs of the installation of the connection. Further more, the consent letter Ex.R9 executed by complainant himself also reveals that he had agreed to deposit costs of the installation of the AP connection as per sales circular No.D-12/2012 and it was legal obligation of the complainant to pay the costs of the installation of the tubewell connection on or before the date of installation of the connection.
10. The bone of contention between the parties is qua costs of the installation of the connection. As per contention of ops, a part payment in lump-sum was deposited by complainant before installation of the connection and it was agreed by him vide his consent letter that he will deposit costs of the installation and the balance amount has been claimed by the ops vide memo Ex.R2 and further more this amount has been pointed out by the internal audit wing through their audit by half margin report. On the other hand, there is plea of the complainant that complainant has deposited the entire cost of the installation of the connection, but however, the perusal of the payment receipt of Rs.55,000/- reveals that this amount has not been received by ops towards full and final payment of the costs rather it appears that this amount of Rs.55,000/- in lump-sum was got deposited and this figure reflects that some other payment was required to be deposited by the complainant.
11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops has placed reliance upon the estimate Ex.R75, but however, copy of this estimate reveals that it does not bear date, month and year of its preparation and further more it does not reveal that all the articles which are mentioned in this estimate were used at the spot at the time of installation of the connection. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops has failed to explain the reason of not mentioning date, month and year of preparation of the estimate. So, it appears from the evidence of the ops that some physical verification of the articles which were used by ops at the time of installation of the connection is required to be made by some officer of the ops not below the rank of Executive Engineer in order to come to the right conclusion qua costs of the installation of the connection. In case the physical verification is not got conducted by concerned officer at the spot, it will definitely cause prejudice to the rights of the consumer/ complainant.
12. In view of the above, we partly allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties not to recover amount mentioned in the recovery memo and further direct the ops to depute some other officer not below the rank of Executive Engineer to visit and verify at the place of installation of the connection regarding the articles mentioned in the estimate and used in the installation of the connection in the presence of complainant and submit his report after evaluating the value of the used articles as per approved rates of the Nigam at the relevant time within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The ops are further directed to pass a fresh order of assessment of cost of the installation of the tubewell connection of complainant and issue a fresh demand calling upon complainant to deposit same within further period of 30 days. The amount of 50% of the memo already deposited by complainant at the time of grant of stay shall be adjusted towards the demand, if any raised by ops. The ops shall not recover amount of surcharge for the period during which this complaint remained pending. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, the parties are left to bear their own costs. 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:16.10.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
