Haryana

StateCommission

A/291/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

FOYI DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

05 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      291 of 2016

Date of Institution:      07.04.2016

Date of Decision :      05.05.2016

1.     Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Op.Division Cheeka, District Kaithal.

2.     Executive Engineer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Op Division Guhla, District Kaithal.

3.     Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchkula through its Secretary/Incumbent Officer, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Smt. Foyi Devi wife of late Shri Jagat Singh, Resident of Village Daba, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for appellants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of Opposite Parties is directed against the order dated February 11^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.02 of 2015.

2.      Foyi Devi-complainant/respondent, had an electric tubewell connection bearing account No.T-AP-1871 in her name from Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘UHBVNL’)-Opposite Parties/appellants. In 2011, the respondent suffered serious injuries and could not pay the bill timely. Consequently, her connection was disconnected. However, after recovery from the illness, she cleared all the arrears. After paying all the arrears, the respondent requested the appellants to restore the connection.  However, the appellants did not restore the same. The respondent filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The appellants/opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply raising plea that there were arrears worth Rs.48,976/- against the respondent. She firstly paid Rs.25,000/- towards part payment and finally paid Rs.26,048/-. However, the appellants disconnected the connection and in the meanwhile instructions being issued by UHBVNL, only 75% of the capacity of transformer could be utilized. So, the appellants asked the respondent to get fresh transformer installed by paying Rs.1,37,500/-. Denying the allegations of the respondent, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint and directed the appellants to reconnect the connection of the respondent from the earlier installed transformer and if the same becomes overloaded, then the appellants will provided separate transformer free of costs.  Hence appeal.

5.      It is not disputed that the respondent was continuing with the electricity tubewell connection which was disconnected on account of non-payment of the dues. It is also undisputed fact that the respondent had cleared all the bills. There is another undisputed fact that no new tubewell connection has been released in favour of any other person after disconnection of respondent’s connection. The plea of the appellants that on account of excess load, the appellants asked for purchasing a new transformer appears to be for un-necessarily harassing the respondent. Had the respondent not defaulted and connection not being disconnected, the same would have continued on the same transformer and in that eventuality there would not have been excess load. Therefore, the District Forum was justified in allowing the complaint and issuing direction to the appellants. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

6.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

Announced 05.05.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL