Haryana

StateCommission

A/25/2016

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJENDER PRASAD - Opp.Party(s)

SACHIN KAUSHIK

18 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.25 of 2016

Date of Institution:08.01.2016

Date of decision:18.02.2016

 

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. AGM (SDO) Operation Sub Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Kanina, Tehsil And District Mahendergarh (Haryana).

…Appellant

Versus

 

Rajender Prasad S/o Shri Khushi Ram, R/o village Sihor,Tehsil and district Mahendergarh (Haryana).

…Respondent

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Sachin Kaushik, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

It is alleged by the complainant that he obtained tubewell electricity connection bearing No.CH-51-0516 from the opposite party No.3-appellant (O.P.) for irrigating his land. The transformer supplying electricity to his tubewell was burnt on 28.12.2011.  Due to non supply of electricity, he could not irrigate the crops and suffered loss of Rs.Three lacs.  Intimation was given to the O.P. on 12.06.2012 and requested to rectify the defects, but, to no effect. He regularly deposited the electricity bills since December 2011 under pressure.

2.      O.P. filed reply and alleged that on receipt of complaint about burning of transformer, a new transformer was installed on 12.01.2013 vide S.R. No.47/114. It was further alleged that even before installation of new transformer, complainant was consuming the electricity of the department.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redresal Forum, Narnaul (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 30.07.2015 and directed as under:-

“1.     To pay Rs.35,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

2.      To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges to the complainant.

3.      Not to charge the electric consumption charges for the period  in dispute.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom O.P.No.3-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that even after burning of transformer electricity supply continued though may be at the lessor voltage.  Complainant was also paying the bill issued subsequently. So it cannot be presumed that he was unable to sow the crop and suffered any loss.

7.      This argument is of no avail.  To run a motor proper supply of electricity is required.  If the required voltage is not there, then motor will not lift water.  The O.Ps. have miserable failed to show that the complainant had sown the crops even after burning of the transformer. He might have used the electricity for other purposes. The main grouse is the loss suffered due to non-sowing of the crops.  The transformer was burnt in the year 2011, which was replaced in the year 2013.  It clearly shows the negligence on the part of the O.Ps.  Hon’ble National Commission has opined in Executive Engineer Vs. Atmaram Kisanrao Aute & Anr. 2016 (1)  CPR 260 (NC) that electricity company is duty bound to ensure smooth and safe supply of power.  If there is any laxity on the part of the electricity company then it is to be considered as deficiency in service and is liable to pay the compensation.  This case is also covered by this case law.  Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.18600/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification.

 

February 18, , 2016	Urvashi Agnihotri Member		R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member
S.K