Haryana

Ambala

CC/389/2018

Lakhpat Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Sethi Ram

04 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case no.      :  389 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution        :  28.11.2018

                                                          Date of decision           :  04.10.2019.

 

Lakhpat Singh son of Fakiriya aged 78 years resident of Village Thamber, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

          ……. Complainant.

 

1.       S.D.O. UHBVN Sub Division Office Adhoya, Barara, District Ambala.

 

2.       XEN, UHBVN, 12, Cross Road, Ambala Cantt.

                                                               ….…. Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.          

                            

Present:       Shri Jaswinder Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri Amit Jain, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’), praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To supply the required proper electricity for the tubewell of the complainant
2. To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the damages suffered by him alongwith litigation costs.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and is having a tubewell for irrigation for his agricultural land. The electricity connection is in the name of Fakiriya Ram son of Daula Singh, father of the complainant since 1985-86 vide meter No.K3-417 and account No.MP03-1024A. Father of the complainant died in the year 1987 and since then he is using the tubewell as a bonafide consumer of the opposite parties and regularly paying the electricity bills to the opposite parties without any default. At the request of the complainant the opposite parties after completion of formalities extended the load of the tubewell connection from 15HP to 20HP in the year2018, inspite of the increase in the sanctioned load the supply of the electricity to the tubewell of the complainant is at low voltage since for the last two years. Due to low voltage, the tubewell of the complainant could not work to irrigate the land of the complainant, even at the time of paddy season. Complainant made complaint to the opposite parties many times for proper supply of electricity and on the written complaint dated 10.08.2018, the officials of the opposite parties visited the spot and came to conclusion that tubewell of the complainant is far from the transformer and they decided to install a separate transformer of 25KV on the tubewell of complainant. After preparing the estimate, the OP No.1 forwarded to OP No.2 for necessary sanction vide memo no.2000 dated 04.09.2018, but OP No.2 raised objection that separate transformer of 25KV cannot be installed on the tubewell of complainant and ordered for preparing fresh estimate. Officials of OP No.1 i.e. J.E. prepared a fresh estimate from the tubewell of Jagmal Singh son of Bishamber resident of village Thamber, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala, where the transformer has already been installed at a distance of 100 sq. yards and the estimate was forwarded by OP No.1 to OP No.2 vide memo No.2096 dated 21.09.2018, but Jagmal Singh raised objection that the electricity wire as per estimate crossed on the room of his tubewell and any mishappening may be caused in future. OP No.2 after considering the objections of Jagmal Singh again sent back the estimate and sought fresh estimate from OP No.1. OP No.2 again prepared estimate third time from the tubewell of Jagmal Singh where the transformer of 25KV already installed and it was decided that transformer of 25 KV will be removed and a new transformer of 63KV will be installed in place of 25KV transformer at the tubewell of Jagmal Singh and from there supply of electricity will be given to the tubewell of complainant, by changing the routes of electric poles and this estimate was forwarded to the OP No.2 vide memo No.2162 dated 15.10.2018, but no effective step was taken by opposite parties in order to remove the grievances of complainant. Due to failure of the opposite parties to provide required electricity the tubewell of the complainant could not operate and consequently damaged the standing paddy crop of the complainant badly due to which complainant suffered a huge financial loss of Rs.2,00,000/- by not supplying the electricity properly the OPs have committed deficiency in providing the service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; has not come to Forum with clean hands, suppressed the true and material facts. On merits, it is stated that Ops after receiving application from the complainant prepared estimate for the extension of the load, but in the meantime Jagmal Singh got issued a legal notice dated 04.10.2018 upon the OPs and the OPs in order to avoid any technicalities in the matter in future sought opinion from the Legal Advisor of the Nigam which is still pending in the said office and said facts were also brought to the notice and knowledge of the complainant and requested the complainant that the OPs will do the needful immediately after receiving opinion of the L.A. of the Nigam but complainant instead of acceding to the genuine requests of the OPs has filed this false and frivolous complaint and dragged the OPs in the unnecessary litigation without any fault or negligence on the part of OPs. Rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant is denied for lack of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                To prove the version, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA and affidavit of Bikram Singh CB along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Shri Aditya Shukla, SDO, Sub Division Adhoya, Ambala as Annexure OP-A alongwith documents Annexure OP1 & OP2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                At the outset, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended that the tubewell connection in question is in the name of Late Shri Fakiriya Ram son of Daula Singh, as such the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs. To this effect the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that no doubt the electric connection of the tubewell is in the name of the father of the complainant Late Shri Fakiriya Ram son of Daula Singh, who died in the year 1987 and since then the complainant is using the said electric connection, thus he is a consumer of the OPs. Since, the complainant being a beneficiary is using the above referred electric connection, therefore he is a consumer of the OPs as envisaged under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Thus, we do not find any force in this contention of the learned counsel of the OPs, hence rejected.

                    On merits, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant filed an application (Annexure C-4) for enhancement of the load of electricity of the tubewell connection, but the OPs did not enhance the load till date.

                    On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs has argued that after receiving the application from the complainant, the OPs prepared the estimate of extension of load, but in the meantime one Jagmal Singh son of Bishamber served upon them a legal notice dated 04.10.2018. In order to avoid legal complications, the OPs sought opinion from the office of the legal advisor of the Nigam and requested the complainant to wait till they receive the opinion of the LA, but the complainant instead of paying heed to their request has filed the present complaint

5.                Admittedly, the complainant applied for extension of the load of  electricity of the tubewell in question. The stand of the OPs is that they have prepared the estimate for extension of load, but could not be able to enhance the load because they received a legal notice from Jagmal Singh. The reason given by the OPs for not enhancing the load is vague, thus we do not hesitate to hold that by not supplying the electricity properly to the tubewell of the complainant, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Thus, the OPs are not only liable to enhance the load for proper supply of electricity to the tubewell of the complainant, but are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs in the following manner:-

1. To enhance the load for proper supply of electricity to the tubewell of the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation to complainant for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the him.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

 

7.                The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :04.10.2019.

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member                       President