Haryana

Sonipat

CC/325/2015

Arjan Dass S/o Gaini Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O. U.H.B.V.N.L. Murthal - Opp.Party(s)

Hemant Sharma

08 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                Complaint No.325 of 2015

Instituted on: 04.09.2015                                                     

Date of order: 08.08.2016

 

 

Arjan Dass son of Giani Ram, resident of village Barwasni, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.          Versus

1.UHBVN Ltd. through its SDO Murthal Sub Division Office at Rajiv Colony, Opp. Sector 15, Sonepat.

2.Raj Kumar ALM UHBVN Ltd. Sub office Bhatgaon, Distt. Sonepat.

3.Rajesh (Contractor) son of Kartar Singh (Fauji) r/o Narajana road, Rajiv Colony, Gali no.2, near Jai Ma Bhandar-cum-Building Material Store, Samalkha, tehsil Samalkha, distt. Panipat.

                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Hemant Sharma Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Amit Balyan, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2.

           Sh. Padam Ahlawat,Adv.for respondent no.2 as well.

           Respondent no.3 ex-parte on 6.6.2016.

 

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          Prabha Wati-Member.

           J.L. Gupta-Member.

          

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has approached the respondents for the release of electricity connection.  The respondents no.2 and 3 assured to release the same.  They got deposited Rs.70,000/-  in the month of 4/2014, but no receipt was issued to the complainant.  However, it was assured by the respondents no.2 and 3 that they will deposit the said amount as security with the department and they also assured that they will erect the line, poles, meter and transformer etc. at their own.   The respondents no.2 and 3 under the supervision of the respondent no.1 got installed the poles, wires, transformer and supplied electricity supply to the tubewell of the complainant, but they did not install any electricity meter and did not give any account number to the complainant.  The complainant requested the respondents several times in this regard, but of no use.  The complainant has moved an application to the higher authorities and SHO PS Sadar Sonepat against the respondents no.2 and 3, but no action has been taken against them.  Now the respondents instead of regularizing the electricity connection of the complainant, has threatened to disconnect the supply and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents no.1 and 2 have appeared and has filed the written statement submitting therein that no amount is deposited by the complainant with the respondents no.1 and 2.  The respondents no.1 and 2 have not installed any poles, wires, transformer and did not supply the electricity supply  to the tubewell of the complainant.  The complainant did not deposit the amount of transformer and conductor as per rules of the Nigam.  After depositing the transformer and other material costs, the electricity tubewell connection is to be installed by the authorized contractor.  The respondent no.3 is not the authorized contractor of the Nigam and he is not competent to install any poles, wires, transformers and supply the electricity tubewell connection to the complainant. The complainant in collusion with the respondent on.3 wrongly, illegally and against the rules of the Nigam, has got the electricity tubewell connection.  The respondents no.1 and 2 have every legal right to disconnect the supply of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         Publication was effected against the respondent no.3 in Jagat Kranti News Paper for appearance of the respondent no.3 before this Forum on 6.6.2016.  But despite publication also, none appeared on behalf of the respondent no.3 and due to this, the respondent no.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 6.6.2016.

 

3.       We have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.  

4.       Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 has submitted that no amount is deposited by the complainant with the respondents no.1 and 2.  The respondents no.1 and 2 have not installed any poles, wires, transformer and did not supply the electricity supply  to the tubewell of the complainant.  The complainant did not deposit the amount of transformer and conductor as per rules of the Nigam.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued on the basis of the pleadings of the present complaint and also while relying on the order dated 26.2.2016 passed by this Forum in complaint no.235 of 2015 titled as Gopi Chand etc. Vs. AEE City Sub Division, UHBVN etc.

5.       After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant material available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

         As per the complainant, the respondents no.2 and 3 got deposited Rs.70,000/- from the complainant in the month of 4/2014 and got installed the poles, wires, transformers and supplied the electricity supply to the tubewell of the complainant, but they did not install any electricity meter or any account number to the complainant.

         In our view, no item can be issued from the store of UHBVN until and unless some amount for the release of the item is deposited with the UHBVN.  There is a procedure for issuance of any item from the store of UHBVN and effective entry is also made for the release of any item and name of the person is also entered in the record to whom the said item is issued.  So, without deposit of any amount with the UHBVN, it is not possible to get installed the poles, wires, transformers etc. for the supply of electricity to the tubewell of the complainant.

         In our view, it is proved by the complainant that the respondents no.2 and 3 got deposited Rs.70,000/- from the complainant in the month of 4/2014 and got installed the poles, wires, transformers and supplied the electricity supply to the tubewell of the complainant, but they did not install any electricity meter or any account number to the complainant.

         Accordingly, it is directed to the respondents not to disconnect the electricity supply of the complainant.  Further it is directed to the respondents to install the electricity meter to the tubewell of the complainant and further to regularize the electricity connection of the complainant without demanding any amount from the complainant.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

(Prabha Wati) (JL Gupta)            (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF, Member, DCDRF           President, DCDRF

Sonepat.      Sonepat.                Sonepat.

 

Announced 08.08.2016