Haryana

StateCommission

A/691/2015

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DUNGAR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT DHEER

11 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No  :      691 of 2015

Date of Institution:      24.08.2015

Date of Decision :       11.02.2016

 

Sub Divisional Officer, Operations, Jui Sub Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Jui, District Bhiwani.  

 

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Dungar Singh s/o Sh. Bani Singh, Resident of Village Kairu, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani, Haryana.  

                             Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

 

Present:               Shri Rohit Dheer, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Jitender Kumar Sehrawat, Advocate proxy for Shri Sunny Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been filed by Sub Divisional Officer, Operations, Jui Sub Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Jui, District Bhiwani (for short ‘DHBVNL’)-Opposite Party, against the order dated May 21^st, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Bhiwani.

2.      Dungar Singh-complainant/respondent, applied for electric connection of his tubewell on 03.03.2011 under the Scheme covered vide Sale Circular No.D-80/2001. He deposited Rs.22,750/- vide receipt Annexure-4. His name was in the seniority list for releasing connection. The DHVBNL issued a Demand Notice to the complainant to deposit Rs.20,500/- as consent money. The complainant deposited the amount vide receipt dated 15.07.2013 (Annexure A-3).  In the meanwhile, the DHBVNL issued Sales Circular No.D-12/2012 dated June 21^st, 2012 (Annexure A-6) which reads as under:-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM

Sales Circular No. D- 12/2012

From

CE/Commercial,

DHBVN, Hisar.

To

All CEs/SEs/XENs/SDOs/OP,

JEs-I, Incharge Sub office, in DHBVN.

 

Memo No. Ch-12/SE/C-R-16/94/2004/F-5 Dated: 21/6/2012

 

Subject: Release of tube-well connection under modified scheme.

 

Sales Circular No. D-6/2012 dated 18/5/2012 was issued to implement the release of T/well connections under modified scheme in compliance to approval of Government of Haryana dated 19.04.2012 i.e.,

I. The charges for releasing AP connection in rural areas be revised from 20,000/- + 7,000/- per span to 30,000/- + 12,500/- per span w.e.f. 01.04.2012 for release of new connections of the new applicants. It was further decided that the rates be revised by DISCOM’s at the beginning of every financial year as per the actual cost of the material. In case such worked out cost escalates by more than 5% over the previous year, prior approval of the Government shall be taken before notifying the revision.

II. All the farmers/agriculturists to whom demand notices have been sent by the DISCOM’s; the connection shall be released at the old rates.

III. The remaining farmers may be motivated to apply under the revised HVDS scheme as per the decision of Government of June, 2011 i.e., 30,000/- + 7,000/- per span.

 

Along with certain guidelines and priorities.

Owing to practical problems faced by the field offices in the implementation of the above scheme, the matter was discussed, reviewed and decided in the meeting held on dated 6.06.2012 under the Chairmanship of worthy FC&PS (Power) Haryana, as under:-

1. All the farmers/agriculturists who have deposited the full amount i.e., Rs 20,000/- plus span charges after issue of Demand notice; the connection shall be released at the old policy i.e., as per SC No. D-80/2001 on LT/HT as per the site conditions.

2. All the farmers / agriculturists who have deposited only Rs.20,000/-, the connection shall be released on LT/HT as per the site conditions after getting the span charges deposited @ Rs.12,500/-per span. However the release of connection to such applicants will be regulated as per old policy i.e., SC No. D-80/2001.

3. The charges to be deposited by the farmers who have applied for connection on or after 1.01.2011(or who have not deposited any amount except ACD) shall be i.e., Rs.30,000/- + Rs.12,500/- per span and the release of connection to such applicants will be regulated as per the guidelines given at Sr. No.5.

4. The transformer installed under HVDS can also be augmented while releasing the above connections.

5. The additional Guidelines for the consumers covered under Sr. No. 3 & 4.

a. If on a new T/F the number of connections to be released is exactly 3, then the consumers will be asked to pay 30,000/- and 12500/- per span each.

b. If on a new T/F the number of connections to be released is exactly 2, then both the consumers will be asked to share equally the total cost incurred for release of connections.

c. Single connection per transformer where the consumer meets the full cost of release of the connection i.e., the line & T/F cost.

d. In case where spare capacity is available on the existing transformer and:- i. Only cable upto 20 mtr is required then the consumer shall pay 20,000 or 30,000 as applicable;

ii. In case additional poles are required for LT Line then 12500/- per span shall be payable in addition to 20,000 or 30,000/ -as applicable.

e. In case where spare capacity is not available on the existing transformer and augmentation of the T/F is required he will be covered in the categories detailed above as per d(i) & d(ii).

f. In case where on account of theft/ damage of T/Fs installed under HVDS/ Self Execution Scheme were replaced by utility with higher capacity T/F, such T/F shall be augmented as per clause ‘e’ for releasing the new connections.

Priority to release the Tubewell Connection:-

1. Single connection per transformer where the consumer meets the full cost of release of the connection.

2. In case where spare capacity is available on the existing transformer and only cable upto 20mtr is required.

3. In case where spare capacity is available on the existing transformer and only LT span are required.

4. In case where spare capacity is not available on the existing transformer and augmentation of the T/F is required and cable upto 20 mtr.

5. Augmentation of existing T/F & erection of LT Line (2 connections or more).

6. Providing additional T/F & erection of LT line (2 or more Tube Well connections).

 

Note: Transformers will be supplied by the Nigam.

This supersedes the Sales Circular No. D-6/2012 dated 18/5/2012.

The above should be brought to the notice of all concerned for careful and meticulous compliance.

CE/Commercial,

DHBVN, Hisar”

3.      As per the new Sales Circular (Annexure A-6), the complainant was required to deposit Rs.1,01,179/- out of which he had deposited Rs.42,500/-  and he had to deposit the balance amount of Rs.58,679/-. The DHBVNL issued notices dated 29.08.2013 (Annexure-1) and 27.10.2014 (Annexure-2). Instead of depositing the amount so demanded, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

4.      The opposite party-DHBVNL contested the complaint by filing reply reiterating the facts stated above and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

5.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the DHBVNL as under:-

“Accordingly we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to treat the application of the complainant under Clause 2 as mentioned above of the sale circular D-12/2012 and to release the AP connection to the complainant. The amount already deposited by the complainant with the Ops, shall be adjusted by the Ops against the release of OP connection to the complainant, excess amount, if any already deposited by the complainant be refunded to the complainant. Resultantly the complaint of the complainant is allowed with no order as to costs.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant-DHBVNL has argued that since the complainant had not deposited the balance amount, the DHBVNL did not commit any error in not issuing the connection to the complainant. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the above stated facts of the case, hence, the impugned order cannot sustain.

7.      In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.23,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant-opposite party against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced: 11.02.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

CL