Haryana

Jind

CC/355/2012

Rajbir - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Nain Elect. Op1 And M/ S Akal Elect. Op2 Ramesh Kumar Op3 And UHBVNL OP4 - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Rajnish Garg

20 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 355 of 2012
                            Date of institution:-3.12.2012
                            Date of decision:-21.7.2016
Rajbir s/o Sh. Hawa Singh r/o village Koyal, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind. 
                                       ...Complainant.
Versus
M/s Nain Electrical new bus stand road near Housing Board Colony, Narwana, Jind through its Prop.
M/s Akal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. village Aralch, Opp. Mcdonald, G.T. road Daraha, District Ludhiana.
Ramesh Kumar authorized Contractor, UHBVNL, village Garhi, Narwana.
UHBVNL, Narwana, District Jind thorugh its SDO, Div. OP S/D, Garhi and Sub Div. KKO40462R.
                                 …Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.    
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
            
Present:-    Sh. Rajnish Garg Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. S.K. Singla Adv. for opposite parties No.1 &3. 
            Sh. A.S. Saini Adv. for opposite party No.4. 
            Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte. 
Order:-
        In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that complainant is agriculturist by profession and he  is owner of 2 acre of land and he took the land measuring 4 acre on lease from Sh. Balbir Singh s/p Ram Singh r/o village Koyal. The complainant sown the crop of 6 acres of 
            Rajbir  Vs. M/s Nain Electrical etc.
                    …2…
land. The complainant purchased the electric transformer for the tube-well connection in his field through the opposite party No.3( authorized contractor of opposite party No.4) and paid the entire amount. The opposite party No.3 is the licensed contractor of the opposite party No.4. The complainant visited the office of opposite party No.4 for purchasing and installing of  the transformer in his field. The opposite party No.3 purchased 25 KVA transformer from the opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 give the 6 years guarantee on the transformer. The opposite party No.4 installed the transformer for tube-well connection in the complainant’s field in the month of Oct./Nov. 2011 vide connection No.KK40462A.  It is stated that on 18.8.2012 the transformer was burnt and tube-well connection became dead in his field. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of opposite party No.4 and gave an application for replacement of the  transformer. The opposite party No.4 told to the complainant that the transformer under self execution scheme therefore the contractor (opposite party No.3) or opposite party No.1 will be responsible for replacing the transformer. The complainant met with opposite parties No.1 and 3 for replacing his transformer but they completely denied and told to him that the warranty of his transformer is two years. The complainant wrote a letters regarding replacement of transformer to the SDM, Narwana and Executive Engineer, OP, Divn. UHBVN, Narwna but all in vain. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed  to restore his electric connection 
            Rajbir  Vs. M/s Nain Electrical etc.
                    …3…
immediately. It is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- per acre, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-  as  compensation on account of mental pain and agony  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  
2.      Pursuant to notice, the opposite parties have appeared and filed the written reply, opposite party No.1 and 3 has filed  joint written statement. The opposite party No.4 has filed a separate written statement. Opposite party No.1 and 3 has contended in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint and the complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is contended that the complainant had never purchased alleged transformer from opposite party No.3 and he has no concern with the transformer and he is proprietor of M/s Nain Electrical and complainant had purchased only the electric goods insulator set and switch etc. from opposite party No.1 vide bill No.856 dated 20.6.2009. The opposite party No.1 is not doing the business selling of transformers, so the question of receive the price and to sale the alleged transformer to the complainant does not arise. However, complainant himself purchased the transformer from opposite party No.2 on 9.6.2009, Photostat copy of bill attached.    Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  answering  opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with special compensatory cost  is prayed for.  
3.    Opposite party No.4 has contended that the connection in question has been obtained by the complainant under self execution 
            Rajbir  Vs. M/s Nain Electrical etc.
                    …4…
scheme as is clear from the document and as per this scheme the consumer himself will be responsible for any fault in the transformer till six years and the complainant has also given an affidavit in this regard. The answering opposite party told to the complainant that he took the transformer under self execution scheme and opposite party No.3 or opposite party No.1 will be responsible for replacing the transformer. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for. 
4.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of identity card Ex. C-2, copy of application Ex. C-3, copies of  letter for replacement of transformer Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-7,  copy of letter dated 24.10.2008 Ex. C-8, copy of letter Ex. C-9, copy of  format for consent Ex. C-10, copy of letter Ex. C-11, copy of endorsement prepared by Raghbir singh ASI P.S Garhi dated 3.10.2012  Ex. C-12,  copy of application Ex. C-13, copies of electricity bill Ex. C-14 and Ex. C-15, copy of jamabandi 2010-11 Ex. C-16,  copy of Sale Circular No.U-14/2009 dated 12.5.2009 copy of Sale circular U-27/2008 dated 6.8.2008 Ex. C-17 and Ex.C-18 and closed the evidence. 
5.    On the other hand, the opposite parties No.1 and 3 have produced the   affidavit of Ramesh Kumar, Prop. Ex. OP-1, copy of cash memo dated 20.6.2009 issued by Nain Elect. Ex. OP-2, copy of letter written by Nain elect. to SDO UHBVNL Narwana Ex OP-3 and copy of invoice dated 9.6.2009 issued by Akal Elect. Private Ltd. Ex. OP-4 and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.4 has produced the affidavit of Sh. Bhupinder Singh, SDO Ex. OP-5, copy of SCO No.74 
            Rajbir  Vs. M/s Nain Electrical etc.
                    …5…
dated 28.7.2009 Ex. OP-6, copy of estimate over  prepared by SDO UHBVNL Garhi Ex. OP-7, copy of site plan Ex. OP-8, copy of invoice dated 9.6.2009  Ex. OP-9, copy of cash memo issued Nain Elect. dated 20.6.2009 Ex. OP-10, copy of letter dated 27.7.2009 Ex. OP-11, copy of inspection report Ex. OP-12, copy of affidavit of Rajbir Ex. OP-13, copy of letter written by Rajbir to SDO UHBVN Garhi Ex. OP-14, copy of letter Ex. OP-15, copy of sale circular No.U-32/2008  Ex. OP-16 and  copy of sale circular No.U-27/2008 Ex. OP-17 and closed the evidence. 
6.    Arguments heard. The grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased one transformer for installation of tube-well connection in the month of October/November 2011 but the same was burnt on 18.8.2012 and the tube-well connection became dead in his field. Several complaints were made with the opposite parties but no action had been taken by them. It is a deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties.
7.    On the other hand, the version of the opposite parties No.1 and 3 that the complainant had never purchased the alleged transformer from them. The complainant had purchased only some electric equipments for installation of his tube-well connection from opposite party No.1. The complainant had purchased the transformer from opposite party No.2 directly and as such there is no deficiency on their part. The counsel for opposite party No.4 argued that as per sales circular U-14/2009 it is the duty of the complainant to maintain their line/transformer if any defect occurred within six years from the 
            Rajbir  Vs. M/s Nain Electrical etc.
                    …6…
installation of the tube-well connection under self  execution scheme. The transformer of the complainant was burnt within one year from its installation, hence the complainant or the manufacturer of transformer is responsible to provide the new transformer. So, there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party No.4 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  
8.    After hearing Ld. Counsel of the parties and going through on the record, it is not disputed that the connection of the complainant was released in the month of November/December, 2011 and the transformer of the complainant was burnt on 18.8.2012. From the perusal of the invoice dated 9.6.2009 Ex. OP-4 it is clear that the complainant has directly purchased the transformer from opposite party  for a sum of Rs.24,960/- and the same was burnt/defective on 18.8.2012.  The opposite party No.2 did not appear to controvert the plea of the complainant that he had purchased the transformer from the opposite party No.2 and he gives six years warranty like as the guaranty given by the opposite party No.4  when the transformer of the complainant was burnt he moved an application to the respondent No.4 for  replacement of the transformer in  question upon the application of the complainant, opposite party No.4  has written a letter dated 21.12.2009  to   the  opposite party No.1 for replacement of the damaged transformer of the complainant after receiving the letter from SDO, Narwana, the opposite party No.1 has given the reply that the complainant has directly purchase the transformer from opposite party No.2, photo-copy of the bill has been supplied to the 
            Rajbir  Vs. M/s Nain Electrical etc.
                    …7…
Nigam, upon which the Nigam has sent a letter dated 5.10.2012 Ex. C-7 to opposite party No. 2 for replacement of the transformer in question.  The opposite party No.4 also relied upon the Circular No.U-14/2009 it is clear that the transformer if burnt of any of any consumer he is required to replace the damaged transformer within warranty period of 72/78 months and thereafter Nigam will replace the transformer. So Nigam is not responsible to replace the same only manufacturer or seller or consumer are responsible for the same. 
9.    We have perused  the above said circular  it  is clear that if  any transformer is burnt/damaged within warranty period of 72/78 monhts,  it is the duty of the complainant to upkeep and maintain  the system is to be carried out by the complainant or seller of the transformer is responsible for replacing his tub-well connection/transformer. It is clear from the evidence that opposite party No.2 has sold the transformer to the complainant and same has been burnt within warranty period and opposite party No.2 is liable to replace the transformer in question. In this regard the Executive Engineer Operation Division UHBNL Narwana  also written a letter dated 5.10.2012 Ex.C-7 to the opposite party No.2 to replace the transformer which was installed in the field of the complainant. But opposite party No.2 did not bother to comply the order of the Executive Engineer nor he has replaced the transformer burnt within warranty period.  
10.    In view of the above discussion we are of the considered view that opposite party No.2 is liable to replace the transformer of the complainant. In this way, opposite party No.2 is deficient in service 
            Rajbir  Vs. M/s Nain Electrical etc.
                    …8…
for  not  replacing the transformer of 25KVA of the complainant and opposite party No.2 is  liable to replace the same. 
11.    So for regard the compensation due to non replacement of the damaged transformer complainant was deprived from irrigating his field long time complainant has suffered a loss Rs.60,000/- per acre and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment, loss occurred by the complainant  due to the disconnection of the electric supply. Since the complainant has not produced material from which the actual loss can be assessed due to non-irrigating his land for not replacing the transformer since the date of burnt of transformer i.e.18.8.2012 till date. The amount claimed by the complainant is considered exorbitant. In totality of circumstances of the case a sum of Rs.  10,000/- per acre and proper compensation per acre per year  of total land of two acres being a owner of the land as mention in the complaint from the date of the transformer burnt  i.e.18.8.2012 till  its replacement. There is no proof of lease of land of 4 acres.  So the complaint is allowed  and opposite party No.2 is directed to replace the burnt transformer of 25 KWA of the same price, same model with  new one and to pay a compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per acre per year for two acres of  land owned by the complainant  from the date of burnt of transformer i.e. 18.8.2012 till the replacement of transformer and also Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The orders be complianced with within one month from the date of order. In case of failure, the opposite party No.2 will pay a simple interest @9% p.a. to the complainant on the awarded amount  from the date of filing the
            Rajbir  Vs. M/s Nain Electrical etc.
                    …9…
 complaint i.e.3.12.2012 till realization.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rules. File be consigned to  record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 21.7.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

        Rajbir Vs. M/s Nain Eelect. Etc.

Present:-    Sh. Rajnish Garg Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. S.K. Singla Adv. for opposite parties No.1 &3. 
            Sh. A.S. Saini Adv. for opposite party No.4. 
            Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte. 
            Arguments heard. To come up on 21/7/2016 for orders. 

                                President,
                    Member        Member       DCDRF, Jind.
                                20.7.2016

Present:-    Sh. Rajnish Garg Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. S.K. Singla Adv. for opposite parties No.1 &3. 
            Sh. A.S. Saini Adv. for opposite party No.4. 
            Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte. 
            Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                President,
                    Member        Member       DCDRF, Jind.
                                21.7.2016