Haryana

StateCommission

A/1220/2017

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAGDISH - Opp.Party(s)

N.K.BAJAJ

24 Apr 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

    

                                             

First Appeal No.           1220 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution:       12.10.2017

                                                Date of Decision:         24.04.2018

 

 

1.      SDO, OP, City Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Gohana, District Sonepat.

 

2.      UHBVNL through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

Jagdish son of Sh. Jage Ram, resident of Village Jagsi, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat.

                             Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

                                                                                                             

Argued by:   Sh. Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for the appellants.    

                      Jagdish-respondent in person.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          SDO, Operation, Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Gohana, District Sonepat and its functionary-opposite parties (for short ‘UHBVNL’) are in appeal against the order dated April 20th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Jagdish-complainant was allowed, directing the UHBVNL as under:-

“In our view, if the cost has increased during the period of last 10 years, the respondents cannot made the complainant to suffer for the lapses on their part because the  complainant has applied for the release of electricity connection for his tubewell in the year 2006 and in the year 2016, the respondents asked the complainant to deposit Rs.68793/- (cost of estimate) which cannot be said to be legal or justified in any manner and it is held that the complainant is not liable to deposit the said amount with the respondents and the respondents are directed to withdraw the said wrong and illegal notice of Rs.68793/-. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to release the tubewell electricity connection in the name of the complainant under the scheme he has applied in the year 2006, within a period of 45 days from the dated of passing of this order.”

2.      The complainant applied for electric connection for agriculture supply on January 09th, 2006.  On demand, he deposited Rs.20,000/- on May 21st, 2007 and Rs.10,000/- on February 26th, 2016.  A notice dated May 20th, 2008 was sent to the complainant to deposit Rs.56,000/-, that is,  cost of 8 spans viz. Rs.7000/- per span but the amount was not paid.  Another notice was issued to the complainant on June 14th, 2011.  On the basis of sales circular No.U-11/2011 (Annexure A-1) whereby following options were given to the consumers desirous of seeking tubewell connections:-

          a)      The old system of four or more connections per transformer, where the consumer pays Rs.20,000/- and Rs.7,000/- per span.

          b)      Three connections per transformer where the consumer pays Rs 30,000/- and Rs 7,000/- per span and

          c)      Single connection per transformer where the consumer meets the full cost of the transformer, in addition to the cost of spans.

3.      In response thereto, the complainant vide Annexure A-2 opted option No.c) referred to above.  An estimate of Rs.98,793.30 was prepared as per sales circular (Annexure A-1).  Since the complainant already deposited Rs.30,000/-, he was asked to deposit Rs.68,793.30 (Rs.98,793.30 – Rs.30,000) vide demand notice (Mark R-1), which was challenged by the complainant by filing complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

4.      After referring to the aforesaid sales circulars and the factual position, question arises as to whether the case of complainant falls under the sales circular No.U-11/2011 (Annexure A-1) or not?

5.      The answer is ‘Yes’ it falls under the sales circular No.U-11/2011 (Annexure A-1) because earlier on issuance of the demand notice to the complainant in the year 2008, he did not deposit the amount of Rs.56,000/-.  Thereafter, he opted single connection per transformer.  On the basis of which, an estimate of Rs.98,793.30 was prepared.  In view of this, it is directed that on deposit of Rs.68,793.30 by the complainant, UHBVNL shall release the tubewell connection to him within thirty days on compliance of option No.c).  The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

 

Announced

24.04.2018

(Balbir Singh)

Judicial Member

 

(Nawab Singh)

President

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.