Haryana

Karnal

319/2013

Suresh Kumar S/o Ram Krishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O. Uttar Haryana Bijle Vitran Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.C. Gupta

03 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.319 of 2013

                                                              Date of instt.: 18.7.2013

                                                                Date of decision:03.05.2016

 

Suresh Kumar son of Ram Kishan resident of village Jundla tehsil and district Karnal.

 

                                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. S.D.O. (OP) Sub Divn. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Jundla District Karnal

2. XEN Sub Urban Divn. No.II Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Nayaypuri Colony Karnal.

 

                                                                                      ……… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh. S.C. Gupta Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh. C.R. Chauhan  Advocate for the Opposite parties.

 

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he was having tubewell electric connection no.W-3/409, new no.AP-22-1264-X of 7.5 horse power (HP). Lateron, he got extended the load from 7.5HP to 12.5HP on 29/30.4.2013. The security amount of Rs.625/- was deposited by him in that regard on 7.9.2012. The opposite parties started issuing bill of 12.5HP, though the transformer for that purpose was not replaced, due to which he could not install motor of 12.5HP on his tubewell. Due to low water level his tubewell no more remained in working condition and for that reason he was unable to irrigate his agricultural land and suffered heavy losses. He visited the office of opposite parties a number of times for getting replaced the transformer for extending the load of tubewell to 12.5 HP, but the opposite parties postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, he got served legal notice dated 2.7.2013 upon the opposite parties, but the same also did not yield any result. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties. Opposite parties put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action and that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the estimate for change of transformer was prepared and the same was approved and sanctioned by the authorities concerned. The transformer would be immediately replaced as and when the same would be made available by the Nigam store. It has further been pleaded that the tubewell of the complainant was in working condition and that he was not suffering any loss as alleged. Factum of serving the legal notice by the complainant has been admitted. It has been asserted there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C7 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Ramesh Kumar Sub Divisional Officer Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 have been tendered.

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

6.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset that during pendency of the complaint the transformer for running tubewell of the complainant with motor of 12.5HP has been replaced by the opposite parties. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by not replacing the transformer immediately after extension of load for tubewell of the complainant from 7.5HP to 12.5HP and if so whether the complainant suffered loss and mental harassment on that account.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the opposite parties started charging energy charges from the complainant for extended load of 12.5HP w.e.f. April 2013 though the transformer for extended load was replaced during pendency of the complaint. In this way, the opposite parties have charged excess amount for 12.5HP load before replacement of the transformer. It has further been contended that the ground water table was low, due to which the complainant could not irrigate his fields with the motor of 7.5HP prior to replacement of transformer for running of 12.5HP motor and as a result of that he suffered financial loss apart from mental harassment.

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that immediately after extending load of tubewell connection of the complainant estimate was prepared and the same was approved and sanctioned by the concerned authority, but the transformer could not be replaced due to non-availability of the same in the Nigam store and as and when new transformer was available in the store the same was installed. It has further been argued that the complainant was running his tubewell with 12.5HP motor even prior to installation of the new transformer and he had not suffered any financial loss or mental harassment, due to non-replacement of the transformer which already existed for running his tubewell.

9.                The copies of bills Ex.C6 and Ex.C7 indicate that the complainant was charged on flat rate at the rate of Rs.481/- per month since April, 2013. It is admitted fact that flat rate for 7.5 HP connection was Rs.263/- per month whereas for 12.5HP connection was Rs.481/- per month. Thus, it is emphatically clear that the opposite parties charged energy bills from the complainant on the connection load on 12.5HP since April, 2013. Document Ex.R1 shows that initially transformer of 10KVA was installed for the tubewell connection of the complainant, but lateron after extending load to 12.5HP the said transformer became over loaded, therefore, the same was to be replaced with the transformer of load 16/20/25 and for that purpose estimate was prepared on 17.6.2013. The learned counsel for the parties could not tell the exact date when the new transformer of extended load was installed by the opposite parties. Even there is no material on record on the basis of which it can be said that the motor of 12.5HP could be run on the transformer on 10KVA. Under such circumstances, charging bills from the complainant w.e.f. April 2013 till installation of new transformer, for connected load of 12.5HP, was not legally justified.

10.              There is no cogent evidence of the complainant to establish that the water table had gone so low that tubewell could not work with the motor of 7.5HP, therefore, it cannot be said that he could not irrigate his fields till replacement of the transformer and suffered financial loss. However, the delay in installation of the new transformer by the opposite parties without any fault on the part of the complainant certainly amounted to deficiency in service on their part.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the excess amount charged by them from the complainant for connected load of 12.5HP from April 2013 till installation of the new transformer or adjust that excess amount in his current bills. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.7500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 3.5.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member