Haryana

StateCommission

A/302/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM PHAL - Opp.Party(s)

N.K.BAJAJ

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      302 of 2016

Date of Institution:      11.04.2016

Date of Decision :       12.08.2016

 

Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban, Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Gohana, District Sonipat.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Ram Phal s/o Sh. Lehna Singh, Resident of Village Mudlana, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonipat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate for appellant.

                             Respondent in person.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This Opposite Party’s appeal is directed against the order dated March 10^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Ram Phal-complainant (respondent herein) with respect to the supply of electricity to his tubewell, was accepted, directing the opposite party as under:-

“…we hereby direct the respondent to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.70,000/- (Rs.seventy thousand) in lump sum as compensation towards loss of crop, causing harassment, rendering deficient services and under the head of litigation expenses.”    

2.                The complainant-respondent has got tubewell connection bearing account No.AP07-1168-M from the appellant-opposite party, with sanctioned load of 7.5 BHP.  On September 8^th, 2014, the transformer from which the electric energy was being supplied to his tubewell, was burnt. He approached the opposite party to install new transformer by writing letter dated 26.09.2014 and also met the senior officer of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL), including submitting complaint at Chief Minister Window (for short ‘CM Window’), Sonipat. However, transformer not being installed for more than nine months, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking compensation of Rs.3.00 lacs for loss of his crops.

3.                The opposite party-appellant, contested complaint by filing written version. It was admitted that the connection was given to the complainant with sanctioned load of 7.5 BHP. It was stated that the transformer was burnt due to overload as MDI was of 10.7 KVA, that is, more than the sanctioned load. It was stated that the transformer was installed on 04.06.2015 after seeking report from the concerned officials. Denying any kind of deficiency in service, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                Learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party contends that intimation was given by the complainant on 09.09.2014 that the transformer was burnt. The process was started immediately and transformer was installed.

5.                A perusal of the application filed by the complainant-respondent shows that it does not bear date; however, the Junior Engineer (JE) endorsed report thereon which is dated 26.09.2014. Certainly the application was moved prior to that date. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party that information was given on 09.10.2014, is certainly wrong as per record produced by the appellant-opposite party. It is not the case of the appellant that the complainant in any way, was responsible either in delaying or fulfilling the requirement which should have been required to be done on his part. The transformer was burnt on 08.09.2014 and it was installed on 04.06.2015, that is, after about nine months. Certainly during this period the complainant suffered loss with respect to his crops due to non-irrigation. Thus, the appellant-opposite party has rightly been held deficient in service.

6.                In view of the above, the impugned order does not require any interference. Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

7.                The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- 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: 12.08.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL