Haryana

StateCommission

A/1028/2016

REKHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

01 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 1028 of 2016

Date of Institution: 27.10.2016

Date of Decision : 01.12.2016

 

Rekha wife of Shri Bir Singh, Caste Jogi, Housewife, resident of Village Ronija, Tehsil and District Palwal, Haryana.

                                                                             Appellant-Complainant

 Versus

 

1.      J.E., Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (Rural), Palwal, District Palwal, Haryana.

2.      Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (Rural), Palwal, District Palwal, Haryana.

                                      Respondents- Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Bir Singh, husband of complainant

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH, (ORAL)

 

Smt. Rekha-complainant has challenged the correctness and legality of the order dated September 22^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (in short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      The complainant was having electric connection No.TT-11-1418 installed in her residence.  On January 16^th, 2016, energy meter of the complainant was shifted outside her premises.  The complainant alleged that the energy meter was not properly installed due to which the electrical equipments caught fire and got damaged. She suffered loss to the tune of Rs.70,000/-. She requested Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short, ‘DHBVNL’) to compensate her but to no avail.  Hence, she filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The DHBVNL, in its written version, denied the averments of the complaint and pleaded that Lineman Balram went to attend the complaint on the spot and noticed interference in the electric connection.  Denying the remaining averments, it was prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      It is not in dispute that the energy meter of the complainant was shifted outside her premises by the DHBVNL.  The only contention raised by the complainant was that the DHBVNL did not properly install the energy meter outside her premises, due to which her electrical equipments were damaged.  This commission does not concur with the submission of complainant in view of the fact that the equipments were damaged after two days of the installation of the energy meter.  No one in the locality of complainant moved any complaint against DHBVNL regarding such incident.  On receiving complaint of complainant, official of DHBVNL visited the spot and found interference in the energy meter.  Meaning thereby is that some non technical person tried to tamper the meter of complainant.  Complainant did not allege that the equipments were damaged due to technical reason viz. voltage fluctuation etc.   The energy meters were installed outside the premises of consumers by the DHBVNL with a view to check pilferage of energy. The complainant failed to prove any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the UHBVNL.  Thus, the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint.  The appeal is also dismissed.

 

Announced 01.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK