Haryana

StateCommission

A/57/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJ KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

06 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeals No:  57 & 58 of 2016

Date of Institution:        19.01.2016

Date of Decision :         06.04.2016

 

Appeal No.57 of 2016

1.     The Sub Divisional Officer ‘Operation’, Sub Urban, Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Jhajjar, District Jhajjar.

2.      The Executive Engineer, ‘Operation’ Division Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Jhajjar.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Raj Kumar s/o Sh. Chet Ram, Resident of Killa Colony, Jhajjar.

 

                                      Respondent/Complainant

Appeal No.58 of 2016

1.     The Sub Divisional Officer ‘Operation’, Sub Urban, Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Jhajjar, District Jhajjar.

2.      The Executive Engineer, ‘Operation’ Division Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Jhajjar.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Rameshwar son of Ram Phal, Resident of Bhatti Gate, Jhajjar.

 

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                           

Present:              Ms. Alka Joshi, Advocate for appellants.

Respondent-Rameshwar assisted by Shri D.D. Yadav-representative.  

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

In these two appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), preferred by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Limited (‘UHBVNL’)-Opposite Parties, orders dated November 27^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaints No.137 and 138 filed by Rameshwar and Raj Kumar-complainants/respondents, are under challenge. By the impugned orders, the District Forum has allowed the complaints and directed the UHBVNL to release tubewell connections to the respondents as per the scheme opted by them, to pay Rs.5,000/- compensation and Rs.5500/- litigation expenses.

2.      The appeals are being disposed of by this common order because the question of facts and law involved is identical.

3.      The respondents, applied for electric connections of their tubewells vide applications dated November 3^rd, 2005 (Annexure A-4 and A-5). Security amount of Rs.20,000/- (each), was deposited by the respondents. The UHBVNL issued letter dated September 5^th, 2011 (Exhibit P-5) whereby the respondents were asked to choose any one option out of the three, mentioned as under:-

1)      The old system of four or more connections per transformer, where the consumer pays Rs.20,000/- and Rs.7,000/- per span.

2)      Three connections per transformer where the consumer pays Rs 30,000/- and Rs 7,000/- per span.

3)      Single connection per transformer where the consumer meets the full cost of the transformer, in addition to the cost of spans.

 

4.      The respondents opted option No.1 and deposited Rs.56000+21000 besides the security but the connections were not released. Hence, the instant complaints were filed before the District Forum.

5.      It was pleaded by the UHBVNL that the respondents had not complied with the requirements of the option adopted by them, so the connections were not released.

6.      Rameshwar-respondent and D.D. Yadav-representative of respondent Raj Kumar, who are present in person, have stated that they are ready to take connections under option No.1 as per the scheme of the UHVBNL and the same be released on seniority basis.

7.      In view of the above, it is directed that UHBVNL shall release the tubewell connections to the respondents within thirty days on compliance of option No.1.

8.      The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

9.      The statutory amount deposited at the time of filing the appeals be refunded to the respective respondents-complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced: 06.04.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL