Haryana

StateCommission

A/1224/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUNI RAM - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.NEGI

09 Oct 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.1224  of  2016

Date of the Institution: 14.12.2016

Date of Decision: 09.10.2017

 

UHBVNL, through its SDO Murthal Sub Division office at Rajiv Colony, Opp. Sector 15, Sonepat.

                                                                   .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

1.      Muni Ram, S/o Mange Ram, R/o Village Barwasni, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

2.      Raj Kumar,ALM, UHBVNL. Sub Office, Bhatgaon, Distt.Sonepat.

3.      Rajesh (contractor) S/o Kartar Singh (fauji) R/o Narjana Road,Rajiv Colony, Gali No.2, Near Jai Ma Bhandar-cum-Building Material Store,Samalkha, Tehsil Samalkha, Distt. Panipat.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

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

                    Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    None for the appellant.

                    Respondent ex parte vide order dated 04.09.2017.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          Nobody has appeared on behalf of appellant today and on previous date nobody appeared on behalf of respondent, so ex parte proceedings were initiated against him. As the matter is pertaining to the year 2016, so this appeal is being disposed of on merits even in their absence.

2.      It was alleged by complainant that in the month of April 2014 he gave Rs.70,000/- to opposite party (O.P.) No.2 in the presence of O.P.No.3 to release electric connection for running tubewell, but, he did not issue any receipt.  It was assured that surety amount etc. would be deposited. Thereafter O.P.Nos.2 and 3 installed poles wires and transformers. They also started supplying electricity, but, neither electricity meter was installed nor account number was given. He approached O.P.Nos.1 and 2 several times, but, to no use.  An application was also moved before concerned SHO and Higher Authorities to take action against them.

3.      Only O.P.Nos.1 and 2 filed joint reply because O.P.No.3 was proceeded against ex parte before District Forum.  It was alleged by them that he did not deposit any amount with O.P.No.2 as alleged by him.   Neither he moved an application for electricity connection nor he deposited security amount for that purpose.   He also did not deposit any amount  for transformer and conductor etc. as per rules and regulations of Nigam.  For electric connection firstly one was to move an application and deposit security amount. He installed poles, wires etc in connivance with O.P.No.3 illegally.  O.P.No.3 was not their authorized contractor.  Memo No.1322 dated 18.09.2015 was sent to him, but, he did not comply with the same.  When he was having illegal connection meter was not installed. He was using electricity illegally. There was no deficiency in service on their part. Objections about maintainability of complaint, accruing cause of action etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 25.10.2016 and directed as under:-

“It is directed to the respondents not to disconnect the electricity supply of the complainant. Further it is directed to the respondents to install the electricity meter to the tubewell of the complainant and further to regularize the electricity connection of the complainant.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, Appellants-O.Ps. have filed this appeal.

6.      If we go through the evidence available on the file it will be clear that observation of District Forum is altogether wrong.  There is no evidence on the file to prove that O.P.No.2 i.e. Raj Kumar ALM ever received any amount from complainant.  Just on the basis of his oral statement it cannot be presumed that such huge amount was paid without any receipt.

7.      More so, there is no application on the file showing that complainant ever applied for electric connection. When no application was filed how it can be presumed that he gave Rs.70,000/- to O.P.No.2.  As per memo No.1322 dated 18.09.2015 Ex.R-1 an application is filed for connection and thereafter the amount is deposited as per estimate. Neither there is any application nor there is any estimate. Averments of complainant about payment cannot be presumed to be true. Annexure C-6 was also sent to complainant about illegal connection and to deposit required amount for regularization of the same, but, he did not comply with the same.  If cases was registered against other persons it cannot be presumed that in the present case also amount was received by O.P.No.2.  It is a question of fact which is to be proved by way of evidence and presumption cannot be drawn.   Complainant has  not produced any evidence on the file showing that any case has been registered against O.P.No.2 or it has been tried qua this fact. So averments of complainant cannot be presumed to be true and he cannot ask for electricity meter and regularization of connection. Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects, so impugned order dated 25.10.2016 is hereby set aside. Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

 

October 10th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.