Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1318/2012

Isham Singh S/o Saale Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Deep Singh

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No.1318 of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 24.12.2012

                                                                                    Date of decision: 24.02.2016

Isham Singh son of Saale Singh, aged 65 years, resident of village Mansurpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                       …Complainant.

 

                                         Versus

 

1. S.D.O., Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Mustfabad, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.
2. X.E.N. Uttar Haryana  Bijli Vitran Nigam Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                       ...Respondents.   

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  None for complainant.

              Sh. Zile Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Isham Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant was having one tubewell connection in the name of his real uncle (Sube Singh) since last 50 years which fell into the share of the complainant since last 15 years. Earlier, number of connection was B-3/9 in the electricity department. However, the meter connection was changed to MB/0006 few years back. Complainant regularly paying all the electricity bills to the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) and nothing is due against him. The complainant was having independent line from Mustfabad and there was no fluctuation in the electricity as well as there was no dim voltage.  However, few years back, the OPs malafidely and without the permission of the complainant connected other tubewell connections on the line of the complainant due to which low voltage problem started occurring in the connection of the complainant and due to that reason the complainant is not able to run the tubewell connection properly and his tubewell motors were badly damaged. The complainant requested the OPs so many times to rectify the problems and remove the unauthorized connections of other persons connected to the line of the complainant but all in vain. Lastly, prayed that OPs be directed to remove the unauthorized connections of the other persons from the electric line of the complainant or new transformer may be installed near the tubewell connection of the complainant and further to pay litigation expenses as well as compensation. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties as no documentary evidence has been filed with the complaint that the complainant was having any electricity connection in his name, complaint is false and frivolous, not maintainable, not come to the Forum with clean hands and on merit all the allegations mentioned in the complaint were denied being manipulated. It has been further mentioned that whatever connections have been shifted, the same has been under the scheme of H.V.D.S. for the benefits of public and there is nothing wrong and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint as the complainant has neither suffered any mental agony, harassment and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

4.                     Complainant failed to file any evidence despite so many opportunities even failed to appear on 07.01.2016, so, the evidence of the complainant was closed by court order dated 07.01.2016. However, at the time of filing of complaint, complainant filed his affidavit, electricity bill in the name of Sube Singh for the month of November 2012, photo copy of another bill dated 7.12.1990 bearing account No. B3-9.

5,                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs failed to adduce any evidence, hence their evidence was closed by court order on 16.02.2016. However, at the time of filing of reply, filed short affidavit of SDO alongwith written statement.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     The only case of the complainant is that earlier the complainant was having independent line from Mustfabad and there was no fluctuation in the electricity as well as there was no dim voltage. However, after few years back Ops malafidely and without any permission connected the tubewell connections of other persons due to that voltage problem started occurring in the connection of the complainant.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs hotly argued that the complaint of the complainant out-rightly deserves dismissal as neither the complainant falls under the definition of consumer nor any service has been hired from the OPs by the complainant. Further, the complainant has totally failed to produce any evidence. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

9.                     After hearing counsel for the OPs and after going through the contents of the complaint, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed as the complainant neither appeared nor filed any documentary evidence in support of his case. Further, the complainant failed to convince this Forum that in what manner he falls under the definition of consumer as from the perusal of bill filed by the complainant alongwith his complaint, even, from the contents of complaint it is admitted by the complainant that alleged connection stands in the name of his uncle Sube Singh from the last 50 years. Further, the complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove the version mentioned in his complaint that he could not run his tubewell due to low voltage and suffered any financial loss. Further, the complainant has not filed any electricity bill in his name showing that he is a consumer of the OPs.

10.                   In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case that he falls under the definition of consumer and has suffered any financial loss and in the absence of any cogent evidence we have no option except to dismiss the complaint being devoid of any merit.

11                    Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 24.02.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                    MEMBER