Haryana

StateCommission

A/469/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARTAR SINGH( SINCE DECEASED) TR0UGH LR. WAZIR SINGH 2. KAPTAN SINGH 3. MUNI 4. BRIGADIER 5. PHOLWAT - Opp.Party(s)

N.P.S.KOHLI

29 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                      First Appeal No.469 of 2015

                                      Date of Institution:22.05.2015

                                      Date of Decision: 29.10.2015

 

S.D.O “OP”, Sub Urban Sub Division, UHBVNL, Jhajjar, District Jhajjar.

                                                                                …Appellant

                                      Versus

 

Kartar Singh (deceased) through LRs,

1.      Wazir Singh,

2.      Kaptan Singh,

3.      Muni,

4.      Brigadier,

5.      Phoolwati

All residents of village Dawla, Tehsil and District Jhajjar.

                                                              …Respondents

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

 

Present:     Mr. NPS Kohli, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr. Kaptan Singh, in person, representative of respondents.

 

                                       O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that he was having agricultural electric connection bearing No.KD5-17 for his tubewell. Due to wind storm on 17.5.2008 PCC electricity pole was broken and supply to his tubewell connection was interrupted. He moved application on 19.5.2008, 13.6.2008, 2.7.2008, 8.6.2008 and 26.8.2010 before the Opposite parties (in short ‘O.ps.’) but the pole was not replaced or repaired and electricity supply was not started. Despite that he was regularly paying electricity bills. Due to deficiency in service he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.1,23,000/-, as mentioned in para No.4 of the complaint.

2.      O.ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that after the alleged storm electric supply was maintained and nobody suffered loss on account of damage to any pole. There was no deficiency in service on their part and complaint be dismissed.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (in short ‘District Forum’) allowed the complaint and directed as under:-

“…we direct the respondents to restore the electric supply to the tube well of complainant and further pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- in lump sum to the complainant on account of losses to crop and a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation expenses and Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment. The order be complied within one month. However, it is made clear that in case the order is not complied within the ordered period of one month, the awarded amount shall fetch an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization of final payment to be paid by the respondents to the complainant.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved, therefrom, Ops have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File Perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the complainant did not suffered any loss because the electricity supply was restored to the consumer after the alleged storm. There is no evidence on the file showing that the pole was damaged. Had it been so, other consumers must have filed complaints. So his averments cannot be presumed to be true and appeal be allowed.

7.      This argument is of no avail. As per complainant the pole giving supply to his tubewell, was only damaged. It is nowhere proved that so many other tubewells are also receiving supply from this pole. From the perusal of application Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 it is clear that complainant requested Ops to start electricity supply since 19.5.2008. Ops have failed to show that the pole was repaired  and his complaint was attended. As per copy of Khasra Girdawri Ex.C-14 it is clear that the land is lying vacant since the year, 2009. Had electricity supply been restored he must have sown crops. He has also shown photograph during the course of arguments wherein broken pole is clearly visible, which proves deficiency in service on the part of Ops. The evidence led by the complainant is not well rebutted by the O.Ps and they are liable to compensate the complainant. Findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed.

8.      The opposite party-appellant is directed to fix the responsibility of the concerned official, who was responsible for delay. The loss suffered by department be recovered from the concerned employee/employees as per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in  Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 and Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K.Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed  in Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K.Gupta (Supra) as under:-

“When the Court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man.  It is the tax payer’s money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law.  It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund ‘immediately’ but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behavior by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.”

9.      Statutory amount of Rs.2,500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.

 

October, 29^th,               Urvashi Agnihotri      R.K. Bishnoi

2015                               Member                   JudicialMember

                                      Addl. Bench                Addl. Bench