Haryana

Sonipat

CC/236/2015

RANDHIR S/O RAM SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO UHBVNL MURTHAL - Opp.Party(s)

Hemant Sharma

14 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                Complaint No.236 of 2015

Instituted on: 27.07.2015                                                     

Date of order: 14.02.2017

 

 

Randhir son of Ran Singh, resident of village Barwasani, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.          Versus

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

2.Jasbir Punia, JE Sub Office Bhatgaon, son of Sh. Lal Chand, r/o village Didbadi, tehsil Ishrana, Distt. Panipat.

3.Dilbagh Foreman, UHBVN Ltd., Sub Office Bhatgaon, distt. Sonepat.

4.Satbir ALM UHBVN Ltd., Sub
Division Office  Bhatgaon, distt. Sonepat son of Shri Khazan, resident of village Kerawari, distt. Sonepat.

5.Rajesh son of Kartar Singh (Fauji) resident of Narayana road, Rajiv Colony, Gali no.2, near Jai Maa Bhandar cum Building Material Store, tehsil Samalkha, distt. Panipat.

 

 

                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

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

           Sh. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent no.1.

           Sh. Tarun Kaushik, Advocate for respondent no.2.

           Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Adv.for respondent no.3.

           Respondent no.4 ex-parte on 30.8.2016.

           Respondent no.5 ex-parte on 17.10.2016.

 

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 5 assured to release the same.  They got deposited Rs.1000/- as security amount vide application no.22802 AP dated 17.12.2013 and they also obtained Rs.1,00,000/-  in the month of 4/2014 from the complainant, but no receipt was issued to the complainant.  However, it was assured by the respondents no.2 and 5 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 5 under the supervision of the other respondents 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. 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.1,2 and 3 have appeared and they filed their separate written statement, whereas respondents no.4 and 5 were proceeded against ex-parte.

         The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that UHBVN has pronounced a scheme i.e. Self Execution Scheme, for releasing electricity tubewell connections and the respondents no.2 and 5 assured to release the electricity connection to the complainant. The respondents have got installed the poles, wires, transformers under the said scheme and also supplied the electricity to the tubewell of the complainant.  The complainant has applied for the electricity connection after 31.12.2012 whereas as per the directions of the Nigam, the tubewell connections are being released before the applied dated 31.12.2012 and thus, the connection could not be released to the complainant as yet. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.

         The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that in this scheme, JE is not involved in any way.  The respondent no.2 never met the complainant. The respondent no.2 did not issue any receipt. The respondent no.2 never took any security amount. The respondent no.2 did not receive any money for installation of tubewell.  The respondent no.2 did not give any assurance to the complainant for installation of electricity line, meter and transformer etc.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         The respondent no.3 has submitted that he did not receive any amount and the said poles, transformer etc. were not installed in his presence and the respondent no.3 has no concern with the alleged installation of poles, wires and transformer etc.  There is no deficiency in service on the part

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.       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 5 got deposited security amount of Rs.1000/- vide application no.22802 vide BA No.16 No.79/79758 dated 17.12.2013 and the respondents no.2 and 5 have obtained Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant in May 2014.  The complainant has placed on record the copy of application moved before the JE Sub Office Bhatgaon and on this application, it is mentioned that ACD Rs.1000/- paid vide BA 16 No.79/79758 dated 17.12.2013 application no.22802 AP dated 17.12.2013. As per the complainant, the  respondents no.2 and 5 got erected the poles, wires and installed transformer in the fields of the complainant, but they did not install any electricity meter or any account number to the complainant. So, in our view, since the UHBVN department has received the amount of Rs.1000/- from the complainant, the complainant comes under the definition of consumer.

         Copy of the report under section 173 Cr.P.C.is also placed on record by the complainant as Annexure-C11. The bare perusal of this document itself shows that criminal case has been registered by the police against the J.E. and contractor for their illegal act. It is proved that something wrong has happened in the department because many transformers were installed, poles & wires were erected after taking huge amount from the innocent farmers.  It proves that the farmers have paid money for their electricity connection and instruments which were required for the tubewell connection.

         Further we have perused the statement of Dilbagh Singh Dhilon JE Sub office UHBVN Bhatgaon Annexure C13 and in this statement, Dilbagh Singh Dhilon has stated that the checking was conducted at the spot and the checking report was also prepared at the spot.  He has also stated that the poles, wire, transformer and other equipments found installed on the connection of the consumers, belongs to the department.

         He has also stated that “Jo Samaan Store Se Jaari Kiya Jata Hai Wah Store Se Allocation Samaan Ki Shri Suresh Kumar Ahuja XEN Ki Permission Se Storekeeper Dwara JE Ke Hawale Kiya Jata Hai.”

         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 the present case, from the statement of Shri Dilbagh Singh Dhilon JE of the UHBVN department, it is clearly established that the necessary approval for the release of equipments i.e. poles, wire, transformer etc. was granted to the officials of the respondents by Shri Suresh Kumar Ahuja XEN and that’s why, the poles, wires and transformer were erected and electricity supply to the tubewell of the complainant was provided.  Further it is proved that the respondents have received Rs.1,05,000/- from the complainant and they 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.

          We also find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondents because one of the similar complaint bearing no.325 of 2015  titled as Arjan Dass Vs. UHBVN etc. was allowed by this Forum vide order dated 8.8.2016 and the following order was passed by this Forum:-

          “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.”

          The respondent UHBVN filed First Appeal No.817 of 2016 titled as UHBVN Vs. Arjan Dass before the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula and the same was decided vide order dated 06.01.2017 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula and the following order was passed:-

          “There is no denying fact that the transformer was issued from the store of the UHBVNL.  The consumer/complaint cannot know as to whether the JE who is an official of the UHBVNL, was acting under the instructions or in violation of the instructions of his superiors.  The fact that JE got the transformer issued from the store of UHBVNL and got installed it on theh poles and connected the connection, is not disputed.  So, the complainant was not to be blamed for it.  Shri Sandeep Sikri, SDO who is present in person, confirmed the installation of transformer on poles in the fields of the complainant and even the connection being released, though he states that it is an unauthorized release of connection. Photograph with respect to erection of poles and installation of transfer has been placed on the file, which supports the case of the complainant.  Thus, on the basis of the evidence available on the record, the impugned order does not require any interference.  Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits”.

         Thus, taking into consideration the order dated 06.01.2017 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula as mentioned above, we hereby allow the present complaint with the direction to the respondents 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 14.02.2017