Haryana

StateCommission

A/862/2015

RAVINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

MOHIT

05 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      862 of 2015

Date of Institution:      09.10.2015

Date of Decision :       05.11.2015

 

Ravinder Singh s/o Sh. Lal Chand, Resident of Village Tiwala, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidhut Nagar, Hissar, through its Managing Director.

 

2.      The Executive Engineer “OP” Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

 

3.      The Sub Divisional Officer, B36-SDO Atela Kalan, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Bhiwani.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

                            

Present:               Shri Mohit, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated September 7^th, 2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short ‘the District Forum’) seeking a substantial enhancement of the relief granted.

2.      Ravinder Singh-complainant/appellant obtained electric connection bearing account No.T153/2029 of his tubewell under Sales Circular No.D-80/2001 by paying expenses to Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘DHBVNL’)-Opposite Parties for installation of transformer etcetera. Also, from the same transformer the DHBVNL released connection to one Lal Chand s/o Sh. Udey Ram, however without complainant’s consent. Unfortunately, the water level of complainant’s tubewell went down. He got installed another tubewell and applied to the DHBVNL for shifting the transformer to the new tubewell. The DHBVNL asked the complainant to pay the cost of shifting which he paid. However, the transformer was not shifted on the ground that the complainant was to produce No Objection Certificate (NOC) of Lal Chand to whom connection was released from the same transformer. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the DHBVNL, the complainant/appellant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

3.      The DHBVNL/opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply stating therein that NOC of Lal Chand was required as per rules of the Nigam. It was also stated that the employees of the DHBVNL had started to shift the transformer but brother of the complainant protested the same due to that reason it could not be shifted. Denying any kind of deficiency in service, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Considering it to be the deficiency in service on the part of the DHBVNL, District Forum allowed complaint and issued direction to the DHBVNL to shift the connection and transformer of the complainant within 30 days, pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2500/- litigation expenses to the appellant failing which they shall be liable to pay Rs.100/- per day.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that amount of compensation awarded is on lower side.

6.      Having taken into consideration facts of the case and the evidence led by the complainant/appellant, this Commission is of the view that the amount awarded to the appellant-complainant is just, reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement.

7.      Appeal is dismissed.

Announced 05.11.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL