STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                                                First appeal No.450 of  2015

Date of the Institution: 14.05.2015

Date of Decision: 28.05.2015

1. S.D.O., Sub Division No.1, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Rohtak.
2. Executive Engineer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Rohtak.

                                                                   .….Appellants

Versus

Smt.Durga Devi W/o Sh.Chand Ram, R/o 833/19, Ravidas Nagar, Rohtak.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

Present:-    Mr.N.P.S.Kohli, Advocate for the appellants.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is condoned the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      It was alleged by the complainant  that she was having tubewell connection No. DAP-11 since 40 years for irrigating her  fields. Since 4-5 years Opposite parties (O.Ps.) started sending bill on the basis of non domestic use. She produced all the relevant documents about the use of tubewell, but, they did not change their stand. The tubewell was existed in her ‘Khewat’.  She was sowing vegetable etc. in this very boundary.  The rate per unit was 25 paisa in case of agricultural use and was Rs.5/- per unit in case of non  domestic use. Now the O.Ps. were demanding  Rs.71761/-.  O.Ps.-appellants were requested to rectify the mistake, but, they disconnected the supply. 

3.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting her averments and alleged that electricity was supplied for the purpose of agriculture but the complainant started using that for diary, which is commercial activity.  During inspection, change of use of connection was found  and that is why demand was raised on the basis of non-domestic use.  Objections about accruing cause of action, maintainability of complaint were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak allowed the complaint and ordered as under:-

“In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions it is directed that the opposite party shall re-install the connection of the complainant and shall charge the bills as per A.P.Connection tariff and overhaul the account of complainant w.e.f charging of bills on NDS basis by the opposite parties from the complainant to till date and issue a fresh bill.  It is further directed that after overhauling the account of complainant, if any amount paid by the complainant accedes the fresh bill, the same shall be adjusted by the opposite parties in future bills of the complainant.  Opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2200/- (Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the appellants-opposite parties have preferred this appeal. 

6.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that  the complainant is using this tubewell for diary purposes and not agriculture.  This fact came to notice during spot inspection and that is why demand was raised on the basis of non domestic use.  So the action is very much justified. 

8.      This argument is of no avail. The appellants did not produce any evidence regarding the change of use of tubewell.  From the perusal of impugned order it is clear that complainant produced copy of ‘khasra Girdawri’ vide which the land is used for agriculture purpose.  O.Ps. have not produced any latest record showing that the land,  for which the tubewell was installed, is not used for agriculture purpose.  If, to increase income, complainant has started diary it does not mean that there is change of use.  Keeping live stock at the agriculture farm is an ancillary part of agriculture and does not amount to change of use. Without any evidence, it cannot be presumed that she is not using the connection for agricultural purpose.  As per revenue record complainant is using land for agricultural purpose.  On the basis of vediography prepared by the department it cannot be presumed that complainant has changed the use.  Revenue record is a best piece of evidence to prove this fact, so these arguments are of no avail.

9.      The findings of the learned District forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Hence the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.1100/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

S.K.