Haryana

StateCommission

A/317/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANGE - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

31 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No  :      317 of 2015

Date of Institution:      06.04.2015

Date of Decision :       31.08.2015

 

Sub Divisional Officer (OP), Sub Urban, Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Jhajjar, District Jhajjar.

 

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Mange s/o Sh. Hari Singh, Resident of Village Silani Jalim, Tehsil and District Jhajjar.

                             Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                              

 

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

Shri Anil Kumar Gahlawat, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Sub Divisional Officer (Op), Sub Urban, Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘UHBVNL’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated February 12^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Jhajjar, whereby notice (Exhibit R-3)  bearing Memo No.2832 dated September 02^nd, 2013, issued to  Mange -complainant-respondent, was declared null and void and the UHBVNL was directed not to recover the amount of Rs.48,900/- from the complainant. The complainant was also granted Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.      The complainant-respondent applied for electric connection of his tubewell vide application dated June 25^th, 2008. His name was in the seniority list for releasing connection. The UHVBNL issued a Demand Notice No.3304 dated September 15^th, 2009 (Exhibit R-12) to the complainant to deposit Rs.20,000/- as consent money. The complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- with the UHBVNL. After completion of the necessary formalities, Service Connection Order Exhibit R-9 was issued on October 6^th, 2010.  In the meanwhile, the UHBVNL issued Sales Circular No.U-11/2011 dated May 19^th, 2011 (Annexure-A) whereby the consumers desirous of seeking tubewell connections were given options given below:-

“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.      The complainant opted option (C) vide Exhibit R-7. As per the said Sales Circular, revised estimate (Exhibit R-5) was prepared. The complainant was required to pay Rs.86,250/-. However, the officials of the UHBVNL wrongly got deposited Rs.37,350/- from the complainant. Thus, a sum of Rs.48,900/- was less than the estimate Exhibit R-5. After coming to know of the mistake committed by the officials of the UHBVNL, notice (Exhibit R-3) was issued to the complainant whereby he was asked to deposit the balance amount of Rs.48,900/-.  Instead of depositing the due amount, the complainant filed the instant complaint before the District Forum.

4.      The opposite party-UHBVNL appeared and contested the complaint by filing reply reiterating the facts stated above. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.  

5.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the UHBVNL as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.  

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant-UHBVNL has argued that the complainant had opted option (C) whereby he was required to deposit Rs.86,250/- but due to the wrong calculation made by the officials of the UHBVNL, a sum of Rs.37,350/- was got deposited from the complainant and connection was released to him. Therefore, the balance amount of Rs.48,900/- was demanded from the complainant vide notice Exhibit R-3. Since it was a case of wrong calculation by the officials of the UHBVNL, the complainant cannot derive the benefit of the same. He was required to deposit Rs.86,250/- and not Rs.37,350/-, particularly when he himself opted to get tubewell connection under option (C) of Sales Circular No.U-11/2011 (Annexure-A). Therefore, the demand of Rs.48,900/- from the complainant by the UHBVNL 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.

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

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.1,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant-opposite party against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 31.08.2015

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

 

CL