Haryana

StateCommission

A/570/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORP.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

27 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

          

                                                                    First Appeal No  :   570 of 2016

Date of Institution:  24.06.2016

                                                                   Date of Decision:    27.02.2017

 

 

1.      The Assistant Executive Engineer, OP, Sub Division, UHBVNL, Pipli, District Kurukshetra.

2.      The Executive Engineer, M & P, UHBVNL, Kurukshetra.

3.      UHBVNL through its Chairman, Panchkula.

 

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited through its Regional Manager, Umri, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

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

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

 

Argued by:          Mr. B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants.

                             Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent-complainant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)

 

          By filing this appeal, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and its functionaries-opposite parties (for short, ‘UHBVNL’) have challenged the order dated January 28^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited-complainant was allowed. UHBVNL was directed not to recover the amount of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant and further to refund the amount of Rs.12,000/-, that is, 40% of Rs.30,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. 

2.      UHBVNL installed HT Conventional trivector meter on the premises of complainant in the month of May 2002.  The requisite amount of installation of the said meter was paid by the complainant to the UHBVNL.  The meter was found to be defective.  It was replaced by the UHBVNL with the new one.  UHBVNL vide notice dated April 30^th, 2002 asked the complainant to pay fresh installation charges of defective meter, that is, Rs.30,000/-.

3.      By filing the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum, complainant challenged the said notice of demanding Rs.30,000/- from it.

4.      Vide order dated October 20^th, 2002 this Commission directed the complainant to deposit 40% of the disputed amount.  The complainant deposited the amount. 

5.      It is the case of the UHBVNL itself that meter installed had manufacturing defect and it was changed. The complainant had already paid the installation charges of the meter to UHBVNL.  So, question of asking the complainant to again deposit Rs.30,000/- is not justifiable.  Thus, the order under challenge requires no interference.  The appeal is dismissed.  

6.      The statutory amount of Rs.10,845/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 27.02.017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK