View 1550 Cases Against Uhbvnl
UHBVNL filed a consumer case on 08 Jul 2016 against RANBIR in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/340/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 08 Aug 2016.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No : 340 of 2016
Date of Institution: 20.04.2016
Date of Decision : 08.07.2016
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (OP) Sub Division Kundli, Tehsil and District Sonipat through its Sub Divisional Officer Kundli.
Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Ranbir son of Shri Garib Ram, Resident of Village Nahri, Tehsil and District Sonipat.
Respondent/Complainant
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.
Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.
Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member
Present: Ms. Alka Joshi, Advocate for appellant.
Shri R.P. Verma, Advocate for respondent.
O R D E R
B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated December 15th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in complaint No.259 of 2015.
2. Ranbir-complainant/respondent, applied for electric connection of his tubewell to the UHBVNL on August 25th, 2009 and deposited Rs.20,000/- vide receipt Exhibit C-1. He also deposited Rs.35,000/- vide receipt Exhibit C-2 on account of cost of five poles as per demand of the UHBVNL. The connection still not being released, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. The UHBVNL filed reply raising plea that as per policy of the Nigam, the connection was to be provided under Agriculture Power Feeder (AP) and the said category had been segregated from Domestic Supply (DS) and Non-Domestic Supply (NDS) category. It was submitted that total 12 poles were required to be installed and the complainant only deposited money for five poles. The UHBVNL issued notice (Exhibit R-1) bearing No.7135 dated 01.10.2014 to deposit the remaining amount but the complainant did not deposit and therefore no deficiency in service could be alleged.
4. On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and directed the UHBVNL to release the connection to the complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the UHBVNL has placed on the file Circular dated 07.10.2010 (Annexure A-4) regarding segregation of Rural Domestic Load from Agricultural load. The UHBVNL has also placed on the file notice Exhibit R-1 asking the complainant to deposit the amount as per Circular (Annexure A-4).
6. The solitary contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent was that since the circular Annexure A-4 was issued after the application was submitted by the complainant, therefore, the complainant was not liable to pay the amount.
7. The contention raised is not tenable. Indisputably, tubewell connection was to be provided to the complainant as per DS/NDS/AP category but as per new Circular of the UHBVNL, the tubewell connection was to be provided under AP Category, as the said category had been segregated from DS and NDS category, for which twelve poles were required to be installed. The complainant had deposited the cost only for five poles and for that reason vide notice Exhibit R-1, he was asked to deposit the balance cost of seven poles. In view of this, no deficiency in service could be attributed to the UHBVNL. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order cannot sustain.
8. In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
Announced 08.07.2016 | (Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member | (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member | (Nawab Singh) President |
CL
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.