Haryana

StateCommission

A/901/2016

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARBANS SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

02 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    901 of 2016

Date of Institution:    29.09.2016

Date of Decision :     02.03.2017

 

1.     Sub Divisional Officer, Operation, Sub Division, Sub Urban, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Fatehabad, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

2.     Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Harbans Singh s/o Sh. Labh Singh, Resident of Village Bhirdana, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                      

Argued by:          Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for appellants.

                             None for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

               The appellants-opposite parties have filed the present appeal against the order dated August 4^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint No.105 of 2015 filed by Harbans Singh-complainant/respondent was allowed directing the opposite parties to release domestic electric connection in the premises of the complainant and to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses within 45 days. In default, the opposite parties shall also pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

2.                The farmers in Haryana, who are living in their
Farmhouses (Dhanies), used to face it difficult to obtain domestic electric connections in their residential premises from rural domestic feeders. To remove this difficulty being faced, a scheme known as ‘PAT Scheme’ was launched by Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL), as desired by the State Government, to provide  domestic connections with concessional rates. Few Sales Circulars were issued by the DHBVNL  in this regard and to make the terms and conditions more clear, Sales Circular No.D-64/2013 (Annexure R-2) was issued on November 14, 2013 by the Chief Engineer, Commercial, DHBVNL, Hisar.

3.                Under the above mentioned scheme, consumer was required to pay only 5% of the total estimated cost for installation of the electric poles, transformers etc.; 50% was to be paid by the DHBVNL and the remaining 45% was to be shared equally by the State Government from Human Resources Development Fund (HRDF) and Members of Parliament Local Area Development (MPLAD) Funds.

4.                The complainant applied for a domestic electric connection, under the above mentioned scheme, in his Farmhouse situated within the revenue estate of Village Bhirdana, District Fatehabad from rural domestic feeder. An amount of Rs.1010/- was deposited as security on 15^th March, 2013. The total estimated cost was Rs.3,30,600/-. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.16,900/- towards 5% of the total estimated cost. Despite depositing the security amount as well as 5% of the total estimated cost, the DHBVNL did not provide domestic electric connection to the complainant for more than a period of three years. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the DHBVNL to provide the domestic electric connection and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of unnecessary harassment and mental agony.

5.                The DHBVNL in its written version admitted that the security amount of Rs.1010/- was deposited on March 15^th, 2013 and the required amount of Rs.16,900/- being 5% of the total estimated cost was deposited by the complainant in view of the Sales Circular No.D-64/2013. The connection was not provided as 45% of the total estimated cost was not deposited by the State Government under HRDF and MPLAD Funds.

6.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint and granted relief as detailed in earlier part of this order.

7.                Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent-complainant but none appeared on behalf of the respondent. Hence, the respondent is proceeded exparte.

8.                Counsel for the appellants-opposite parties has been heard. File perused.  

9.                The DHBVNL-opposite parties have assailed the order of the District Forum merely on the ground that the electric connection could not be provided earlier as 45% of the total estimated cost, that is, Rs.1,48,770/- was not deposited by the State Government under HRDF and MPLAD Funds. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the DHBVNL urged that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties also as State of Haryana has not been made party to the proceedings in this case.

10.              This Commission is not much impressed with this contention of the learned counsel for the DHBVNL. In fact, the Sales Circular No.D-64/2013 was issued by the Chief Engineer, Commercial, DHBVNL, Hisar, as per desire and consent of the State Government. Any such understanding was in between the DHBVNL and the State Government. There was no agreement regarding payment of the above mentioned amount in between State Government and the complainant. In fact, the dispute regarding payment of 45% of the total estimated cost was in between the DHBVNL and the State of Haryana. It was the responsibility of the DHBVNL to receive or claim 45% of the total estimated cost from the State Government or the concerned department. As per the scheme mentioned in the Sales Circular No.D-64/2013, the DHBVNL was required to provide domestic electric connection from the rural domestic feeder to the Farmhouse of the complainant as and when the security amount as well as 5% of the total estimated cost was deposited by the complainant. So, the State of Haryana was not a necessary party for the decision of this complaint.

11.              In view of the above, the District Forum has rightly held that the DHBVNL was required to provide domestic electric connection to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date the required amount was deposited, otherwise, the DHBVNL can be burdened to pay penalty which may extend to Rs.1,000/- for each day of default.

12.              As per discussion above in detail, it clearly appears that the order passed by the District Forum is perfectly valid and justified. Hence, the findings of the District Forum stands affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.

13.              The statutory amount of Rs.7500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 02.03.2017

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

Balbir Singh Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL