Haryana

StateCommission

A/269/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

GOPI CHAND - Opp.Party(s)

N.K.BAJAJ

04 Jul 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :        269 of 2016

Date of Institution:       31.03.2016

Date of Decision :        04.07.2017

 

 

 

A.E.E/SDO, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, City Sub Division, Indra Colony, Sonepat, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

1.      Gopi Chand son ofSh. Charan Dass, resident of Village Kilohard, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

 

2.      Narender Singh son of Sh. Sarup Singh, resident of Village Kilohard, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

                                      Respondents-Complainants

3.      Jai Singh, retired J.E. City Sub Division, Indra Colony, Sonepat, Haryana, resident of Village Bhatgaon, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Vikas Lochab, Advocate for respondents-complainants

(Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with vide order dated July 12^th, 2016)

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)  

 

          The instant appeal filed by UHBVNL-opposite party No.1 (appellant herein) calls in question the correctness of the order dated February 26^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Gopi Chand and Narender-complainants was allowed.  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

          “In our view, without the consent of the department, it is not possible to install any equipment such as transformer, wire and poles at the spot. Thus, it is held that there is grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and we hereby direct the respondents to release the tubewell connections to the complainants and further to install the electricity meter at the site of tubewell of the complainants as per their consumption of electricity energy.”

 

2.      The complainants contacted the appellant and Jai Singh, Junior Engineer-opposite party No.2 for release of tubewell electricity connections.  The complainants deposited Rs.4600/- as security on June 05^th, 2014.  They further paid Rs.1,00,000/- each to the opposite party No.2. Accordingly, by erecting poles and installing a transformer, tubewell connection was released to the complainants. However, electric meter was not installed at their tubewell. The UHBVNL instead of regularizing the connection and without installing meter, threatened the complainants to disconnect their electric supply.

3.      The UHBVNL-opposite parties, in their written version, denied the averments of the complaint.  It was pleaded that neither any amount was deposited by the complainants in the account of UHBVNL nor any assurance was given for installation of electricity meter to the complainants. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      It was argued on behalf of the UHBVNL that the complainants unauthorizedly got the electric supply at their tubewell by getting the poles erected and transformer installed. 

5.      UHBVNL did not deny the fact that the transformer was issued by it. The complainant was not supposed to know that Jai Singh, Junior Engineer-opposite party No.2, who was an official of the UHBVNL, was acting under the instructions or in violation of the instructions of UHBVNL. Throughout there was no fault on the part of complainants and they were not to be blamed.  It has been admitted at bar by learned counsel for the UHBVNL that the department of UHBVNL is getting poles and transformers etc installed through the contractor.  

6.      For the reasons recorded supra, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

Announced 04.07.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK