BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; BHIWANI.
C.C.No.82 of 2017.
Date of Instt.: 12.06.2017.
Date of Decision: 26.11.2019.
Mahabir aged 56 years son of Shri Musadi Ram resident of village Prem Nagar Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
..Complainant
Versus
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through Managing Director Vidyut Nagar Hisar Tehsil & District iHHi Hisar.
- Executive Engineer, O.P. City Division Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Bhiwani Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
- SDO/AJM Sub Urban Sub Division No.2, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Bhiwani Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
..Opposite parties.
Complaint U/Ss 12 & 13 of CP Act
Before: Sh.Nagender Singh, President.
Sh.Shriniwas Khundia, Member.
Present: Sh.Vikas Dhanda, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Shanker Dhopra, counsel for the OPs.
ORDER
PER NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a farmer by profession and he had tubewell electric connection bearing No.N-330 on his land but due to illness he got the same disconnected. The complainant has never been defaulter. He had applied for releasing of tubewell electric connection through receipt no.26744 dated 30.12.2006 by depositing requisite fee of Rs.12375/-. He has also completed all the requisite formalities but the opposite parties have not released the tubewell electric connection. The complainant visited the opposite parties number of times and requested for releasing the tubewell electric connection and even got served a legal notice upon them but to no avail. Due to inaction on the part of opposite parties, the complainant is suffering financial loss. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
2. On being served, the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint reply wherein various preliminary objections such as maintainability, estoppal, locus standi and concealment of material facts etc. have been taken. In fact, a new scheme for releasing of power connection to the tubewells under modify scheme has been introduced restraining new work order under old scheme, inviting fresh tender after obtaining option from all applicants, who have been issued demand notice, but connections are yet to be released superseding all relevant existing instructions on the subject matter. The scheme of HVDS in agricultural in Haryana has been reviewed by the State Govt. and it has been decided that policy of giving tubewell connection should be such that undue financial burden is not cast upon the distribution utilities vide sale circular No.D-23/2011 memo No.Ch-12/SE/C-R-16/94/2004/F-5 dated 16.05.2011 from C.E./Commercial, DHBVN Hisar according to which the charges recoverable from the applicants, have been guided in 3-Tier approach. Further sale circular instruction No.10/2011 vide memo No.CH-10/SE/C-R-16/94/2004/C-5 dated 19.05.2011 have been issued for implementation of the above said HVDS scheme and further sale instruction No.15/2011 vide memo No.CH-15/SE/C-R/16/94/2004/F-5 dated 29.06.2011 have been issued for process of execution plan for the above said HVDS scheme. The policy has to be implemented with immediate effect for all new tubewell connections uniformity. The work order for release of tubewell connections under old scheme have been issued and fresh short term tenders were invited after taking option from all applications, who have been issued demand notice but connections are yet to be released. Although sale circular No.D-80/2001 dated 09.10.2001 was issued to power connection to tubewells under A.P.category in suppression of previous instructions issued time to time for the purpose of subject matter with guidelines/conditions which was offered in first instance to the applicants, who had submitted their test report upto 31.03.1989 where directed to file their consent within a month alongwith a deposit of Rs.20,000/- from the date of issuance of scheme. The seniority list was also fixed as per date of receipt of test report. Now, some clarification has been sought by field officer and to avoid confusion for implementing the scheme by field officer, the management issued new sale circular No.D-23/2011 dated 19.08.2011. Under this sale circular, it is clarified that under option A if a group of four or more persons seeking connection from on T.F then cost of HT line would be borne by all the applicants in equal share. However, L.T. line cost of Rs.7,000/- per span and T/F cost of Rs.20,000/- shall be borne individually by each applicant. In second option B if, applicants are upto 3 then cost of T/F would be Rs.30,000/- per applicant and all other expenses like as option A and under option C, if any applicant who desire of independent T/F for his connection in that situation such consumer shall have to release his connection under self execution scheme and no additional cost except supervision charges 1/5 % shall be deposited in the Nigam. Some points were also clarified for releasing tubewell connections, which are mentioned in sale circular No.D-23/2011. The complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.12,375/- vide receipt No.26744 on dated 30.12.2006 but his application has been rejected/ cancelled as the complainant had not complied with the notice sent by the opposite parties. Other connections have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. Thereafter both the parties have led their respective evidence. The complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C5 and closed the evidence on 25.02.2019 whereas the opposite parties have tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R3 and closed the evidence on 29.05.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for opposite parties reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.
7. The main object of the opposite parties in the present case is that the application of the complainant was rejected as he had not complied with the notice sent by the opposite parties. Perusal of the case file reveals that the opposite parties have produced on record affidavit of Sh.Nishit Kumar, as Ex.RW1/A besides documents application moved by complainant Ex.R1 and copies of register maintained by the opposite parties during the course of regular work. It is strange that on one hand the opposite parties have taken the plea that the complainant has not complied with the notice sent to him, therefore, his application was rejected and on the other hand, no such document has placed on record to prove the version of the opposite parties. Even, there is nothing on the record to show that as to on which date the alleged notice was ever served/sent to the complainant. From the material available on the case file, we find it a clear case of negligence on the part of the opposite parties and also deficiency in service because the opposite parties have not explained as to which formalities the complainant has not fulfilled which were necessary for obtaining of tubewell electric connection. Certainly the electricity department i.e. opposite parties are legitimate authority duly constituted under the Power Department having the norms, instructions, Sales Circulars, Sales Manuals under the guidance of provisions of Indian Electricity Act in order to keep and maintain the various affairs of the Nigam, more particularly to provide the electricity connections to its proposed consumers, is also guided by its Sales Manual vide its instruction no.26 which provides time limit of three months for grant of connection of tubewell consumers and the same reads as under:-
“ INSTRUCTION No.26
Time Limit for Grant of Connection.
The connections to various categories of prospective consumers after the receipt of Test Report should be given within the time specified below:-
- Larges Industrial Supply and tubewell consumers. : 3 months.
- Medium and Small Industrial Power Supply : 2 months
- Domestic and Commercial Consumer. : 1 month
2. It may, however, be pointed out that the period specified above is the maximum and normally it should be possible to give connections in that very much shorter periods.
3. In view of the time limits specified above it should be ensured that the demand notices are issued carefully taking all the circumstances viz., availability f funds and materials etc. into consideration.”
8. In view of the provisions of Instruction referred above it can be construed that opposite parties/Nigam is bound to comply the same as in sequence of formalities regarding providing the connection in response to completion of all the formalities as well as depositing of requisite charges by the complainant. The complaint of the complainant deserves acceptance. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. Versus Zora Singh & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos.4910-4981 of 2005 decided on 11.8.2005 by Hon’ble Supreme Court.
9. So, in view of the abovesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that it is a clear case of deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties, therefore, the complaint deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to release the tube-well electric connection as applied for by him in the year 2006 as per scheme existing at that time within sixty days after depositing the further amount of the scheme, if any, due against him. The opposite parties are further to pay Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: - 26.11.2019.
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
