Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/306/2019

Parkash Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kaswan

27 Aug 2020

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

                                                     Complaint No.: 306 of 2019

                                                                   Date of Institution: 08.08.2019

                                                           Date of order: 27.08.2020.

 

Parkash Kour daughter of Sunder Singh age 67 R/O Jawahar Chowk, Fatehabad Tehsil &  District Fatehabad

 

                                                                          ….. Complainant.

                                          Versus     

 

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad through its XEN (Op) Fatehabad.
2. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its S.D.O. (Op) City Fatehabad.

 

….Opposite parties.

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

                                                                                

Before:                Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                            Dr.Rajni Goyat, Member.

         

Present:                Sh. Davender Kaswan, counsel for the              complainant.

Sh. Kuldeep Sharma, counsel for the OPs.

 

ORDER:

 

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties with the averments that the father of the complainant namely Sunder Singh (since deceased) had obtained an electricity connection bearing A/c No.SF-54/3010  around 45 years ago for agriculture purpose for tubewell situated in agriculture land at Basti Bhiwa. The complainant being his legal heir is using the same and also making payment of the electricity bills regularly except the disputed amount. It has been further averred that the OPs are threatening the complainant that they would charge the bill of tubewell as per NDS commercial rate at place of Agriculture Tariff rate and on being asked, it was stated to the complainant that the connection is situated on urban feeder. The complainant requested the OPs not to charge the electricity charges as per NDS commercial rate on the ground that connection is on urban feeder because at the time of taking the connection there was no different rural feeder. Now, the Ops have issued a bill of Rs.2,91,681/- for commercial supply wrongly and illegally despite assurance that no commercial rate would be charged. The complainant requested the OPs to overhaul the account of the complainant after correcting the bill but the Ops disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant.  It has been further averred that the connection was released under AP Category and AP Tariff was applicable as per agreement and the connection is still running on the same feeder till today from the time of its release. The complainant has no objection if his connection is released on any rural feeder, if the Ops want to shift at his own cost and it is the duty of the Ops to shift the connection from one line to another line and if agriculture feeder is not available nearby then it cannot be said that the complainant is at fault.  The complainant requested the Ops many times to correct and accept the bill as per AP rate and reconnect his connection but the Ops flatly refused to do the same. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On being served, OPs appeared and filed their joint reply wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, jurisdiction, estoppel and concealment of true and correct facts etc. have been raised. It has been further submitted that there is an electricity connection vide account No.SF-54/3010 in the name of father of the complainant namely Sunder Singh for agriculture purposes for tubewell connection and now the complainant is using the said electricity connection. The said tubewell connection was connected with urban feeder but now as per sale instruction No.27/2007 & sale circular No.D-15/2012 of DHBVN, the  Ops have shifted all such like tubewell connection in Haryana State with Agriculture feeder which were connected with urban feeder.  The Ops had issued a letter No.898 dated 23.06.2017 to complainant for change of electric supply from urban feeder to agriculture feeder in which they had directed the complainant   that he may have change the electric supply from urban feeder to agriculture feeder on his own expenses otherwise the electric bill will be charged as per NDS Tariff (Commercial). However, till today no reply has been given by the complainant, therefore, the Ops have rightly issued the electricity bill as per NDS tariff. The complainant was bound to apply for shift of electricity connection from urban feeder to rural feeder on his own cost as per circular No.D-15/2012.  But the complainant has not applied for the change of feeder. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                Both the parties have adduced their evidence. Learned counsel for the complainant, in evidence, has tendered affidavit of the complainant Annexure C1 and documents Annexure C2 to Annexure C4 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Dheeraj Kumar SDO as Annexure RW1/A and the documents as Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents placed on record. 

5.                It is not disputed that the complainant being legal heir of Sunder Singh (since deceased), who had obtained electricity connection bearing A/c No.SF-54/3010 around 45 years ago, is using the said connection.

6.                          Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the electricity connection was released for agriculture purposes under AP category and even there was no different rural feeder at the time of releasing of said electricity connection, therefore, the OPs have no right to charge the electricity charges on NDS/commercial rates and as per agreement only AP tariff is applicable.  It has been further argued that it is the duty of the OPs to shift the connection from one line to another line and if the agriculture feeder is not available nearby, it is not the fault of consumer and it is the duty of the Ops to make the same available. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the case laws titled as SDO City Sub Division, UHBVN, Gohana Vs. Om Parkash Jain 2015 (2) CPJ 37 (Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)  and SDO UHBVNL & others Vs. Durga Devi 2015 (3) CLT 393  (Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission).

7.                          On the other hand learned counsel for the Ops has argued that as per sale instruction No.27/2007 & sale circular No.D-15/2012 of DHBVN, the  Ops have shifted all such like tubewell connection in Haryana State with Agriculture feeder which were connected with urban feeder.  The Ops had issued a letter No.898 dated 23.06.2017 to complainant for change of electric supply from urban feeder to agriculture feeder in which they had directed the complainant  that he may have change the electric supply from urban feeder to agriculture feeder on his own expenses otherwise, the electric bill will be charges as per NDS Tariff (Commercial). But till today no reply has been given, therefore, the Ops have rightly issued the electricity bill as per NDS tariff.

8.                          Though the Ops have placed on record an application Annexure R3, allegedly written to the complainant for change of urban feeder to rural feeder but there is nothing on record to show that this letter was ever served upon the complainant. For the sake of arguments, if we presume that the letter No.898 dated 23.06.2017 was served upon the complainant, even then the complainant cannot be forced to shift one line to another line because it is the duty of the OPs to shift the same from one line to another. The complainant has produced the copy of khasra girdawari Annexure C4, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the land in question is being used for agriculture purpose, therefore, the OPs cannot be allowed to charge the electricity bill for NDS category for the connection, which was being released for agriculture purposes. Learned counsel for the Ops has righty relied upon the case laws titled as SDO City Sub Division, UHBVN, Gohana Vs. Om Parkash Jain and SDO UHBVNL & others Vs. Durga Devi  (Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) (supra). The complainant is merely a farmer and it is the duty of the Ops to provide the smooth supply of the electricity to her for agriculture purposes but the Ops under the garb of bill, issued under NDS category, had disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Though the electricity connection of the complainant was restored vide order dated 08.08.2019 passed by this Commission but the act and conduct of the Ops clearly falls under the ambit of deficiency in service on their part as the agriculture connection was wrongly converted the into NDS category.

9.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops has wrongly and illegally issued the bill for Rs.2,91,861/- (Annexure C2) on the basis of NDS category, therefore the same is hereby quashed. The Ops are hereby directed to rectify the bill of the complainant by considering the connection of the complainant as agriculture only and not for NDS/commercial purposes, in any manner. The present complaint is accordingly allowed and the OPs are further directed to make a payment of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation, for mental agony, harassment  and for litigation expenses. The present order be complied with within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the present order.  Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                                   Dated:27.08.2020

                                                                   (Raghbir Singh)                                                                                   President                                 (Rajni Goyat)                                   District Consumer Dispute

 Member                                                Redressal Commission, Fatehabad.