Haryana

StateCommission

A/854/2016

SURAJ SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

JAIMINI TIWARI

18 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                      First Appeal No.           854 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:       20.09.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         18.10.2016

 

 

Suraj Singh @ Surat Singh son of Shri Balbir Singh, age 45 years, Occupation Agriculturist, resident of Village Ramgarh, Tehsil Hodal, District Palwal.

…..Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      SDO, DHBVNL, Hassanpur

2.      XEN, DHBVNL, Hassanpur

3.      Charan Singh s/o Ram Singh, Chairman of SRS International School, resident of Ramgarh, Tehsil and District Palwal.

…Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

 

 

 

Argued by:          Ms. Jaimini Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          Suraj Singh @ Surat Singh-complainant was having about 04 acres land in Village Ramgarh.  A tubewell was installed in his land.  On May 19^th, 2015 on account of heavy storm, five poles of tubewell LT Line were damaged.  He lodged complaint with Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Hassanpur-opposite parties No.1 & 2 (for short, ‘DHBVNL’).  The officials of DHBVNL reached the spot to replace the damaged poles but could not do so because Charan Singh, one of the farmers resisted.  On July 03^rd, 2015 again officials of DHBVNL visited the spot and tried to replace the poles but again Charan Singh obstructed.  The officials of the DHBVNL lodged FIR against Charan Singh in Police Station Hassanpur on July 09^th, 2015.  Deputy Commissioner, Palwal on the complaint filed by complainant deputed Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palwal to look into the matter but inspite his efforts also, damaged poles could not be replaced by DHBVNL. Claiming deficiency in service on the part of DHBVNL, complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (for short ‘District Forum’) alleging that on account of not having the electricity on his tubewell, his crop of moong was damaged and he suffered loss of Rs.4,00,000/-.

2.      DHBVNL, in its written version, alleged that DHBVNL was not at fault because number of attempts were made to replace the damaged poles but on account of resistance by Charan Singh, the same could not be replaced.  It was also pleaded that a civil suit titled Shri Bihari Ji Maharaj Shiksha Samiti, Palwal vs. S.D.O, Dakshin Haryana Vidyut Parasran Nigam Limited and others was filed in the civil court.  In the said suit, Charan Singh was also one of the parties and Civil Judge, Hodal passed the following order dated August 05^th, 2015:-

          “……Keeping in view the hazard which is likely to be caused by LT lines the defendants are restrained from redrawing the HT Electric Lines if the same have not been fell down, till further orders.”

 

3.      The District Forum vide impugned order dated June 13^th, 2016 dismissed the complaint.

4.      In appeal before this Commission, complainant has alleged that on account of deficiency in service on the part of DHBVNL, he suffered loss of Rs.4,00,000/- and the District Forum has wrongly dismissed the complaint.

5.      A perusal of complaint itself shows that it was the case of complainant himself that DHBVNL made number of attempts to replace the poles but Charan Singh obstructed to it.  DHBVNL even lodged First Information Report in Police Station, Hassanpur against Charan Singh.  It is also not in dispute that Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hodal also restrained DHBVNL to redraw the LT electric lines till further orders vide order dated August 05^th, 2015.  The aforesaid order was vacated by the Civil Judge on October 01^st, 2015.  Thereafter, DHBVNL replaced the damaged poles. 

6.      Under these circumstances, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of DHBVNL.  Thus, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

 

 

Announced 18.10.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

U.K