Haryana

StateCommission

A/703/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM CHANDER - Opp.Party(s)

N.P.S.KOHLI

03 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      703 of 2015

Date of Institution:      27.08.2015

Date of Decision :      03.11.2015

 

Sub Divisional Officer, Operations, Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Machhroli, Tehsil and District Jhajjar.

 

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Ram Chander s/o Sh. Kishan Lal, Resident of Village Kilrodh, Post Office, Dadanpur, Tehsil and District Jhajjar. 

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri N.P.S. Kohli, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Parmod Parmar, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Sub Divisional Officer, Operations, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘UHBVNL’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated June 10^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.      Ram Chander–Complainant/respondent, applied for electric connection of his tubewell vide application dated May 20^th, 2008 by depositing Rs.1500/-. The opposite party issued Demand Notice and whereby it demanded Rs.20,000/- and the same was deposited by the complainant on September 30^th, 2009. Thereafter, the complainant under some wrong apprehension changed his option (a) to option (c). The connection being not released, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The Opposite Party contested complaint by filing reply. It was stated that firstly the complainant had chosen the option (a) and on August 9^th, 2011 he changed his option from (a) to (c). Thereafter, a Sales Circular No.25/2013 was issued vide which the complainant was required to deposit the balance amount of estimate, that is, Rs.78,690/- but he did not pay the same and for that reason the connection was not released. Denying any kind of deficiency in service, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint directing the opposite party as under:-

“….we direct the respondents to release the tube well electric connection of complainant as per the scheme opted by the complainant immediately without losing any further time within a period of one month. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- on account of mental agony, harassment as well as a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.”

 

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party does not dispute that though the complainant has initially applied under option (a) of Sales Circular No.U-10/2011 and thereafter changed his option from (a) to (c). For ready reference, the Sales Circular is reproduced as under:-

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

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

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

 

6.      There was no bar to change option. It is not disputed that the complainant deposited the necessary charges as per option (a). After change of option, he was asked to deposit Rs.1,25,048/- out of which he paid Rs.46,350/- and the balance amount of Rs.78,690/- was not paid due to which his application for connection was cancelled, however, after issuing the Service Connection order on March 19^th, 2011.

7.      Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the view that the appellant-opposite party has rightly been directed to release connection to the complainant. However, it is made clear that if any dues are found payable under the scheme opted by the complainant, the same shall be paid by him. No other interference in the order of the District Forum is made out.

8.      The impugned order is modified in the manner indicate above and the appeal stands disposed of.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.3500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 03.11.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL