BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.44 of 2012
Date of Institution : 28.2.2012
Date of Decision : 19.9.2016.
1. Jee Sukh son of Shri Mallu Ram,
2. Ranjeet Sihag son of Shri Jee Sukh, residents of village and post office Chautala, Tehsil Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainants. Versus.
1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its Managing Director at Hisar.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, ‘OP’ Sub Division, Chautala, Tehsil Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa.
3. Executive Engineer, DHBVN Limited, Dabwali Distt. Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA …………………PRESIDENT
SH. RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Vinod Kamboj, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Rishi Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainants is that complainants are the consumer of the opposite parties vide the electricity connection installed at their tubewell for which electricity supply to the tubewell is being supplied from the Transformer of 63 KVA with which the current load was 27.5 BHP. However, the said transformer of the complainant was damaged on 4.8.2011 and complainant immediately reported the matter to the ops and requested for the replacement of the same as electricity supply to their field was stopped and they were unable to run tubewell and irrigated the fields. It is further averred that against the damaged transformer, new transformer No.46/4504 Sr. No. 87761 was supplied to the ops but the same was not installed within time. However, the opposite parties in furtherance of their deficiency rather placed another defective transformer bearing Sr. No.26517 at the site while the transformer bearing Sr. No.87761 was supplied for the actual placement. Thereafter, the complainants wrote a letter dated 14.11.2011 and message in this regard was sent to op no.3 but of no avail. Thereafter, they met with op no.3 and addressed a letter No.11813 dated 18.11.2011 for getting redressed their grievance but nobody paid any heed to the genuine claim of the complainant. After that the opposite parties on 30.11.2011 adressed a letter dated 30.11.2011 alongwith an allocation while the transformer which had already been sanctioned for the installation was already with the ops and this fact has been admitted by ops vide their letter No.11813 dated 18.11.2011 addressed by Executive Engineer, ‘OP’ Division, DHBVN, Dabwali to Asstt. General Manager, ‘OP’ S/ Division, DHBVN Chautala. Thereafter, again allocation was made on 30.11.2011 vide memo No.12136 and ops installed the same transformer No.46/4504 Sr. No.87761 and they failed to explain delay in installing the said transformer while the same has been supplied to the ops on 9.11.2011 and due to the delay and lapses, the complainants undergone financial loss as they have to run the tubewell through the tractor in order to save the standing crop in 15 acres of land and have suffered financial loss of Rs.1,00,000/- approximately to irrigate the field by running tractor and as such they are entitled to the above said amount from the ops besides compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment etc. and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the case by filing written statement raising certain preliminary objections specially that no joint complaint lies before the Forum and complainants have not filed any application in this regard and that cause of action of both the complainants are separate and even both the tubewell connections as well as transformers of both the complainants are also separate. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law. It has been further submitted that the transformer was replaced due to extension of load and it was immediately started without any delay on the part of ops. The new transformer was installed at a proper place through which the complainants as well as other villagers are getting electric supply. There is no loss to the complainant as alleged. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. By way of evidence, the complainants have tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW2/A, report of Executive Engineer, OP Division, DHBVN, Dabwali sent to the Superintending Engineer, OP Circle, DHBVN, Sirsa vide letter bearing Memo No.1025 dated 3.2.2012 Ex.C1, copy of show cause notice served upon Satyawanm LM Ex.C2, copy of letter bearing Memo No.7207 dated 9.8.2011 for allocation of transformer against damaged transformers Ex.C4, copy of letter bearing Memo No.1800 dated 4.8.2011 Ex.C5, copy of letter dated 18.11.2011 Ex.C6, copy of application moved to Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa Ex.C7, copy of application Ex.C8, certificate of AGM, Operation Sub Division, DHBVN, Chautala Ex.C9, bill dated 11.12.2011 Ex.C10, postal receipts Ex.C11 to Ex.C13, acknowledgements Ex.C14, Ex.C15 and again copy of letter dated 3.8.2011 Ex.,C16. On the other hand, ops have tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R10.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. In so far as objection of opposite parties regarding filing of the complaint jointly by the complainants is concerned, we see no substance in the contention of the opposite parties in this regard as complainant No.1 Jee Sukh is father of complainant no.2 Ranjeet Singh and the connection is in the name of complainant no.1 which was earlier in the name of his father Mallu Ram. The ops have failed to prove on record that tubewell connections as well as transformers of both the complainants are separate. So, the contention in this regard of ops is repelled.
6. The grievance of the complainants is that transformer in question was damaged on 4.8.2011 and same has been ultimately replaced with a new one after considerable delay despite their many requests and letters and they have to suffer financial loss of Rs.1,00,000/- to run the tubewell through tractor for irrigating their crop. However, the complainants have failed to tell this Forum as to whether which crop was sowed by them at that relevant time in their fields. Although, the ops have not explained the delay in their written statement but from the perusal of report of Executive Engineer, OP Division, DHBVN, Dabwali sent to the Superintending Engineer, OP Circle, DHBVN, Sirsa vide letter bearing Memo No.1025 dated 3.2.2012 Ex.C1 placed on file by the complainant, it is evident that transformer bearing Sr. No.87761 was got drawn from the store on 10.9.2011 as transformer in question of complainants was damaged on 4.8.2011 and when Sh. Satyawan LM went to the site for installation of new transfer, Harnek Singh owner of the land raised objection and he also submitted representation in this regard on 5.9.2011 that he will not allow to replace the damaged 63 KVA transfer till H-Pole and transformer is shifted in the field of Jaimal son of Sh. Mallu Ram. As such, the transformer was taken back to the office due to dispute raised by the owner of the land where transformer was installed. Then the said new transformer was got installed by Sh. Satyawan AFM at the site of one Devi Lal. However, in the meantime the dispute with Harnek Singh, the land owner was resolved and transformer bearing sr. No.26517 was installed there on 9.11.2011 but the said transformer was also damaged on 16.11.2011, so one another transformer was drawn from the store on 3.12.2011 but complainants refused to install this transformer saying that the same transformer which has been allocated in their names be installed. The Executive Engineer in his report concluded that Sh. Satyawan LM having the charge of AFM has not complied with the Nigam’s instructions and did not complete the official formalities as no SJO has been issued against installation of both transformers as well as he has not taken any written permission for transfer of material against one allocation to the another by means of STWs and as such show cause notice, copy of which has been placed on file as Ex.C2 has been served upon said Satyawan LM.
7. Keeping in view the above discussed factual position, the serving of show cause notice for above said lapses on the part of Satyawan LM is between him and the department and from the above said report it is clear that certainly some delay in installing the transformer which was allocated in the names of complainants has been caused but ultimately the said transformer has been installed and the whole fault cannot be attributed to the opposite parties because of some dispute raised by land owner Harnek Singh. The complainants have not placed on file any affidavit of said Harnek Singh that he did not raise any dispute for installing the transformer when it was allocated to the complainants. The complainants have also failed to prove on record that which crop was sowed by them in their fields at that relevant time and in absence thereof, it cannot be said that complainants had to spend such huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for irrigation of their crop and in absence of any reliable and cogent evidence with regard to sowing of any particular crop whether it needed much water or not, we are of the view that said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- claimed by the complainants for financial loss is on too much higher side.
8. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousands) in lump sum to the complainants as compensation including litigation expenses within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainants will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:19.9.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
