Haryana

StateCommission

A/1072/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

KAZANA RAM ALIAS KAZANA - Opp.Party(s)

ANKUSH GUPTA

14 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1072 of 2015

Date of Institution:        16.12.2015

Date of Decision :         14.07.2016

 

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Kalayat, District Kaithal through its Sub Divisional Officer.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Kazana Ram @ Kazana s/o Sh. Surjan @ Surjmal, Resident of Village Balu, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.

                                      Respondent

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Ankush Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri K.S. Dalal, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘UHBVNL’) is in appeal against the order dated November 9^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Kazana Ram @ Kazana-complainant/respondent, was accepted. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“……..we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to refund the excess amount of Rs.57,500/- to the complainant. The Ops are also burdened to pay Rs.2200/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of order till its payment.”

 

2.      The complainant applied for electric connection of his tubewell vide application dated July 2^nd, 2012. His name was in the seniority list but the connection was not released though the other applicants junior to the complainant were given connections. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thereafter, the UHVBNL released connection to the complainant by charging Rs.1.00 lac, under Sales Circular No.U-08/2015 (Exhibit C-3), inspite of the fact that the Sales Circular No.U-08/2015 had already been withdrawn by the UHBVL vide Sales Circular No.U-14/2005 (Exhibit C-5). The relevant extract of Exhibit C-5 is reproduced as under:-

“The issue of release of tube well connections has been reviewed and it has been decided to withdraw the Sale Circular No.U-8/2015 dated 01.05.2015 w.e.f. its date of issue i.e. 01.05.2015. In view of the above, the release of tubewell connections will continue to be undertaken as per the provisions of sale Circular No.U-25/2013 dated 03.06.2013.”

3.      In view of the above, it is clear that the complainant was entitled to take connection as per the provisions of Sales Circular No.U-25/2013 (Exhibit C-6). The relevant extract of (Exhibit C-6) is reproduced as under:-

“Subject: Release of tube-well connection under modified scheme.

Please refer to SC No.U-26/2012 dated 06.08.2012 vide which instructions for the release of T/well connection under modified scheme in compliance to decision taken in the meeting held on dated 06.06.2012 under the Chairmanship of worthy FC&PS (Power) Haryana was issued i.e.,

Now, the matter has been reviewed and clause 5 (a) & (b) is clarified i.e.,

5. The additional Guidelines for the consumers covered under Sr. No. 3 & 4.

a) If on a new T/F the number of connections to be released is exactly 3, then the consumers will be asked to pay 30,000/- and 12500/- per span each.

b) If on a new T/F the number of connections to be released is exactly 2, then both the consumers will be asked to share equally the total cost incurred for release of connections.

If a consumer does not opt for individual T/F but the Nigam has to install a dedicated T/F depending upon the site condition then the consumer shall deposit full cost but later on if any other consumer comes on this T/F, then his connection may be released subject to sharing of 50% of the total cost i.e., (cost incurred by first consumer + cost incurred by second consumer), also if third consumer comes on the T/F, he will deposit Rs. 30,000 + Rs. 12,500 per span. In case, the T/F is to be augmented, Rs. 30,000/- will remain with the Nigam and if no T/F is augmented then Rs. 30,000 will be divided equally between first and second consumer.

The other conditions shall remain the same i.e.,

1. All the farmers/agriculturists who have deposited the full amount i.e., Rs 20,000/- plus span charges after issue of Demand notice; the connection shall be released at the old policy i.e., as per SC No. U-77/2001 on LT/HT as per the site conditions.

2. All the farmers/ agriculturists who have deposited only Rs.20,000/-, the connection shall be released on LT/HT as per the site conditions after getting the span charges deposited @ Rs.12,500/-per span. However the release of connection to such applicants will be regulated as per old policy i.e., SC No.U- 77/2001.

3. The charges to be deposited by the farmers who have applied for connection on or after 1.01.2011 (or who have not deposited any amount except ACD) shall be i.e., Rs.30,000/- + Rs.12,500/- per span and the release of connection to such applicants will be regulated as per the guidelines given at Sr. No.5.

4. The transformer installed under HVDS can also be augmented while releasing the above connections.

5. The additional Guidelines for the consumers covered under Sr. No. 3 & 4. c) Single connection per transformer where the consumer meets the full cost of release of the connection i.e., full amount of estimate sanctioned for release of that particular AP connection. d) In case where spare capacity is available on the existing transformer and:- (i) Only cable upto 20 mtr is required then the consumer shall pay 20,000 or 30,000 as applicable;

(ii) In case additional poles are required for LT Line then 12500/- per span shall be payable in addition to 20,000 or 30,000/ -as applicable.

e) In case where spare capacity is not available on the existing transformer and augmentation of the T/F is required he will be covered in the categories detailed above as per d (i) & d (ii).

f) In case where on account of theft/ damage of T/Fs installed under HVDS/ Self Execution Scheme were replaced by utility with higher capacity T/F, such T/F shall be augmented as per clause ‘e’ for releasing the new connections.”

 

4.      Thus, as per Sales Circular No.U-25/2013 (Exhibit C-6), the complainant was required to pay Rs.30,000/- for the connection and Rs.12,500/- per span.

5.      It is not the case of the UHBVNL that it had installed more than one span for releasing connection to the complainant. So, the complainant was liable to pay Rs.42,500/- (Rs.30,000+12,500) whereas the UHBVNL charged Rs.1.00 lac from the complainant.  Thus, the UHBVNL is liable to refund the excess amount charged from the complainant, that is, Rs.57,500/- (Rs.1,00,000 – 42,500).

6.      In view of the above, no case for interference in the order passed by the District Forum is made out. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merits.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- 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 14.07.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL