Haryana

StateCommission

A/380/2016

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PREM SUKH - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

03 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     380 of 2016

Date of Institution:    03.05.2016

Date of Decision :     03.10.2016

 

1.      DHBVNL through its SDO, Budoli, District Rewari.

 

2.      Executive Engineer, DHBVNL, Rewari.

 

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Prem Sukh s/o Sh. Shri Mool Chand, R/o Village Budoli, Tehsil and District Rewari.

 

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

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

Shri Ravi Kherwa, Advocate for respondent.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

By filing this appeal, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and its functionaries-opposite parties (for short ‘DHBVNL’) have challenged the order dated February 24^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Prem Sukh-complainant was allowed. DHBVNL was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss of crops and litigation expenses of Rs.5,100/- to the complainant.

2.      Complainant filed complaint alleging that he was having an electricity tubewell connection bearing No.GNG-246 on his tubewell situated in Village Budoli, Tehsil and District Rewari. The electricity was not supplied at the tubewell of the complainant from May 7^th, 2010 to November, 2010, on account of which he had suffered loss of Rs.70,000/- to his crops. It was pleaded by him that he did not use the electricity connection on his tubewell for six months but inspite of that DHBVNL was sending him the bills. It was prayed that bills of Rs.16,987/- of the electricity consumed be corrected but no action was taken by the DHBVNL.

3.      DHBVNL filed written version alleging that tubewell connection was in the name of Mool Chand, father of the complainant. The electricity was regularly supplied on the tubewell of the complainant from May 07^th, 2010 to November, 2010. Inspite of the fact that he did not deposit the electricity bills from November, 2008 to April, 2012. As a result thereof, an amount of Rs.16,987/- was outstanding against him. The electricity connection was disconnected on April, 12^th, 2012 due to non-payment of electricity bills. After paying the bills, the electricity connection was restored.

4.      To arrive at a decision, that the complainant had suffered loss to his crops, the District Forum in paragraph No.4 of the impugned order stated as here under:

During the course of arguments it was conceded that after paying the electricity bills, the electric supply to the tubewell of the complainant was restored but the counsel for the complainant is still not satisfied because according to him, the connection was restored after a delay of considerable time resulting into damage of crops. To bring home this fact, our attention is drawn towards the complaints made to the opposite parties on 13.10.2010 and 21.10.2010. There is no rebuttal to this. One can imagine the plight of the farmer if his crop of vegetables is devoid of insufficient water for such a long period, he will be left at the mercy of others for procuring water. There is nothing to show that why there is delay in restoring the connection after such a delay which reflects deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

 

5.      Anil Gupta, Sub Divisional Officer, DHBVNL has tendered his affidavit that the electricity supply on the tubewell of the complainant was normal during the period it was stated. The complainant has not led any evidence on record except his affidavit that the electricity was not supplied to his tubewell from May 07^th, 2010 to November, 2010.

6.      On the other hand, Sub Divisional Officer has filed his affidavit. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant did not pay the electricity bills from November, 2008 to April, 2012. The electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected on April 12^th, 2012 and restored after payment of the bills.   In view of this, there is no deficiency in service on the part of DHBVNL.  The appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.7,700/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 03.10.2016

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President