Haryana

Karnal

CC/181/2016

Kashi Ram S/o Sadhu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer Sub Division Uttar Haryana Bijle Vitran Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Kumar

08 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.181 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 03.06.2016

                                                         Date of decision:8.2.2018

 

Kashi Ram son of Sadhu Ram, resident of VPO Biana Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.                                                                                                                                           …….Complainant       

                                        Versus

 

1.Executive Engineer, S/U Division no.1, UHBVN, Karnal.

2. S.D.O. Sub Division UHBVNL Garhi Birbal.

 

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

              Ms. Veena Rani…….Member

      Sh. Anil Sharma…….Member

             

 

 Present  Shri J.P. Chaudhary  Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Amit Munjal Advocate for OPs.

                       

ORDER:                    

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that the complainant took a tubewell connection from OPs and his connection number was B2-0313, changed to AP25-0313 and in the end of year 2015 again changed to GA13-1230. The transformer of his tubewell connection was theft in 2011 and information of this theft is registered in the office of SDO UHBVN Garhi Birbal at sr. no.20 dated 21.11.2011. The complainant served a notice by the OP’s sDO Garhibirbal in the year of 2012 in which the department asked him to deposit the 20% of the total amount of cost of transformer. The complainant visited the office of OP and asked them about the government scheme, which he heard from many people in village and new transformer for free is being kept by government, if tubewell transformer is theft. But no one gave him any reply and your department was adamant on depositing the 20% deposit from the complainant. Also in the notification of year 2010 government made it clear that it was responsibility of contractor to install a new transformer in case of theft of transformer. The son of complainant was also visited the office of OPs so many times and asked about the circular prior to 20/2012 but he was also not guided properly.  OP no.2 was adamant on depositing 20% of total amount of cost of transformer whereas complainant was asking that government mentioned in circular prior to circular U-20/2012 that theft transformer will be kept for free. On 7.4.2016 complainant deposited the amount Rs.11,114/- demanded by OP no.2. OP no.2 again asked the complainant to deposit 30% more as per new notification. On asking of OP no.2 complainant deposited Rs.16671/- on 6.5.2016 and OPs installed a new transformer in the fields of complainant on 19.5.2016. Till today complainant has paid the bill of this connection whereas no electricity is used by him. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and complainant prayed for direction to the OPs to return the amount he paid for bills from 1 January, 2012 till this month and loss of crops yield from last 4 and a half years due to non-availability of water, alongwith interest.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi; maintainability; jurisdiction; time barred and complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and concealed the true and material facts. On merits, it is submitted that the schemes of the Nigam used to remain under changes from time to time and as such under said changes and as per sales circular no.U-20/2012 of the Nigam the demand of 20% of the total cost of the transformer was made and the same was not deposited by the complainant within the stipulated period mentioned in the notice. Thereafter, as per the subsequent sales circular of the Nigam another noticed with the demand of 10% more amount was sent to the complainant vide memo no.3193 dated 20.12.2013 but that amount too has not been deposited till the year 2015. But as per the latest circular of the Nigam the complainant has to deposit 50% cost of the transformer and as the complainant has not deposited the required/demanded money within the stipulated period hence he was asked to deposit the 50% amount out of total amount and when he deposited the same in the office of OPs, then the OPs replaced the transformer of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that on 25.7.2015 at about 2.30 p.m. when SDO and Area Incharge of defendant checked the site they found that 25 KVA transformer is existing at the tubewell of Shri Banwari Lal son of Sadhu and the tubewell of complainant is connected from the 25 KVA Transformer through 4 core cable lying on the ground about 80 Mts. The official done the videgraphy for evidence and prepared LLI no.849/8714 on the spot about the existing position. In this way both Banwari Lal and complainant was indulge in unauthorized USB of electricity and in this regard a letter dated 2.8.2015 vide memo dated 772 was issued to concern and to counter the same complainant filed the present complaint. It is further submitted that since the electricity supply to the connection of the complainant never disconnected and as such complainant is bound to pay the electricity charges. Not also this complaint kept on stealing the energy from the other transformer and when official of OPs checked the same then only he deposited the amount to get the transformer installed. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 8.3.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Rakesh Dahiya SDO Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on 7.9.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             Learned counsel for complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant took a tubewell connection from OPs having memo no.B2-0313, changed to AP25-0313 and in 2015 again changed to GA 13-1230. He further argued that the transformer of the said tubewell was stolen in 2011 and informed the OP no.2 about the same at sr.no.20 dated 21.11.2011. He further argued that OP no.2 served a notice to the complainant in the end of 2012 vide which the complainant was asked to deposit the 20% cost of the transformer. He further argued that as per notification of 2010, it was the responsibility of contractor to install a new transformer in case of theft of transformer. He further argued that on 7.4.2016 the complainant deposited Rs.11,114/-on account of 20% cost of the transformer. He further argued that the OP no.2 again asked the complainant to deposit 30% more as per new notification and the complainant deposited Rs.16,671/- on 6.5.2016 and thereafter the OPs installed new transformer on 19.5.2016. He further argued that complainant has paid the bill of this connection and the complainant prayed for return of bill amount paid from 1.1.2012 i.e. for 4½  years.

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs argued that the complaint is time barred. He further argued that the scheme/sales circulars of the Nigam changed from time to time and same are applicable from the date of issue. Accordingly as per sale circular no.U-20/2012 the complainant was asked to deposit 20% cost of the transformer but the complainant has not deposited the same. When the complainant has deposited the 20% i.e. Rs.11,114/-on 7.4.2016, at that time the scheme was for 50% cost of the transformer and accordingly complainant was asked for the same and the complainant deposited the same on 6.5.2016, thereafter, the transformer was replaced on 19.5.2016 as admitted by the complainant. The amounts were deposited as per sale circulars applicable at that time and without any protest by the complainant. He further argued that on 25.7.2015 during checking it was found that the complainant had connected his tubewell from the 25 KVA transformer of Shri Banarsi Lal through 4 Core cable about 80 Mtrs. lying on the ground and was indulged in unauthorized use of electricity. None of both was present at the spot, so videography was done and LL1 no.849/8714 was prepared at the spot. A letter dated 2.8.2015 vide memo no.772 was issued to both i.e. the complainant and Banarsi Lal. The complainant was stealing the energy from other transformer, so this Forum has no jurisdiction. He further argued that connection of complainant was never disconnected as such complainant is bound to pay bill.

8.             From the pleading and evidence of the case, it is clear that the transformer of complainant was stolen in the year 2011 and OPs asked the complainant to deposit 20% of cost in the year 2012 but the present complaint has been filed on 3.6.2016. As per provisions of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, the Limitation for filing complaint is two years from the date when the cause of action has arisen. The cause of action had arisen in the year 2011 and thereafter in the year 2012 when the complainant was asked to deposit 20% cost of the transformer. The complaint has not been filed within 2 years. Therefore, the present complaint is barred by the law of limitation.

9.             It is also clear that OPs during checking found that the complainant was using the energy unauthorizedly and in this regard LL-1 no.849/8714 has been prepared and a letter dated 2.8.2015 vide memo no.772 was issued to the complainant regarding the theft of the energy. Therefore, the complainant was involved in the theft of energy. In these circumstances, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint.

10.           From the complaint itself, it is clear that the transformer of the tubewell of complainant was stolen in the year 2011 and the OPs asked the complainant to deposit 20% cost of transformer in the year 2012. The complainant has deposited the same only on 7.4.2016. It is pertinent to mention here that on 25.7.2015, the OPs checked the site found that the complainant was found indulged in unauthorized use of energy and the OPs prepared LL-1 no.849/8714 and wrote letter in this regard to the complainant vide memo no.772 dated 2.8.2015. It is only thereafter that the complainant deposited the 20% cost of the transformer on 7.4.2016. At that time the sale circulars of 50% cost of the transformer was applicable, so the complainant was asked to deposit remaining 30% cost of the transformer. The complainant immediately deposited the remaining 30% of the cost on 6.5.2016 i.e. within a month. Thereafter, the OPs replaced the transformer of the complainant on 19.5.2016 which is reasonable period. The complainant has not produced any evidence vide which it can be said that the complainant had got disconnected his tubewell connection. The complainant has not produced such evidence vide which it can be said that the complainant has asked the OPs for replacement of the transformer or made any written request after the letter of OPs in 2012 for 20% cost till 7.4.2016 when he deposited 20% cost of transformer. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations levelled by him in this complaint and we found no deficiency on the part of the OPs.

11.           Thus, as a sequel to above discussions, we dismiss the present complaint on the ground of limitation, jurisdiction as well as on merits also. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 08.02.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Veena Rani)        (Anil Sharma)     

                        Member                 Member