Haryana

StateCommission

A/475/2016

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

KEHM CHAND - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

26 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No  :      475 of 2016

Date of Institution:      20.05.2016

Date of Decision :       26.10.2016

 

1.     Sub Divisional Officer (OP), Sub Division, DHBVN Limited, Jui.

 

2.     DHBVN having its Head Office at Vidhyut Nagar, Hisar through its Managing Director.

 

3.     Executive Engineer, Sub Urban Division, DHBVN, Bhiwani.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

 

Khem Chand son of Sh. Gharsi Ram, Resident of Village Kural, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani.  

                             Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                         

 

Present:               Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Ajay Vijorania, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Sub Divisional Officer (Op), Sub Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others-opposite parties (for short ‘DHBVNL’) are in appeal against the order dated March 21^st, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short, ‘District Forum’), whereby, complaint filed by Khem Chand-complainant was partly allowed.  For ready reference, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

          “……Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to release the AP connection to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of SC No.D-80/2001, to the complainant.  The ops are also directed to pay Rs.1500/- as litigation cost to the complainant which will be adjusted by the opposite parties in the future bills of the complainant….”      

 

2.      The complainant applied for electric connection of his tubewell vide application dated February 04^th, 2011. He deposited Rs.23,250/- vide receipt Annexure C-1. His name was in the seniority list for releasing connection. In the meanwhile, the DHBVNL issued Sales Circular No.D-12/2012 (Annexure-A) whereby the consumers desirous of seeking tubewell connections were given options given below:-

“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.D-80/2001 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 @ 12,500/- per span. However the release of connection to such applicants will be regulated as per old policy i.e., SC No.D-80/2001.

3.      The charges to be deposited by the farmers who have applied for connection on or after 01.01.2011 (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.

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 Rs.30,000/- and Rs.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.

c.       Single connection per transformer where the consumer meets the full cost of release of the connection i.e., the line & T/F cost.

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 Rs.20,000 or 30,000 as applicable.

ii.       In case additional poles are required for LT Line then Rs.12500/- per span shall be payable in addition to Rs.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.”

 

3.      As per the guidelines of Sales Circular No.D-12/2012 (Annexure-A), mentioned above, the farmers who had applied for connections on or after January 1^st, 2011 (or who had not deposited any amount except ACD), were required to deposit Rs.30,000/- + 12500/- per span and electric connections to them were to be regulated as per the guidelines given at Sr. No.5.

4.      Indisputably, the complainant had applied on February 04^th, 2011, that is, after January 1^st, 2011. So, he was entitled to get connection as per Sales Circular No.D-12/2012 (Annexure-A).  Accordingly, a revised estimate was prepared. The complainant was required to pay Rs.1,01,179/-, out of which he had paid Rs.23,250/-. Thus, a sum of Rs.58,679/- was required to be deposited by the complainant.. 

5.      Since the complainant was liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.58,679/- as per the new Sales Circular, therefore, he cannot derive the benefit of the old Sales Circular. The demand of Rs.58,679/- raised by the DHBVNL cannot be termed as deficiency in service.  This being so, the District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order cannot sustain.

6.      In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.750/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants-opposite parties against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

 

Announced 26.10.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

 

UK