Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/540/2013

Jash Pal S/o. Pitamber Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Singla

10 May 2016

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                               Complaint No…540  of 2013.

                                                                                               Date of institution: 26.06.2013

                                                                                               Date of decision: 10.05.2016

Jashpal aged about 62 years son of Sh. Pitamber Singh, Nakum R/o VPO Jathalana, Sub Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. The S.D.O., Uttar Haryana BijliVitran Nigam Ltd. (Operation) Radaur, Sub Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Executive Engineer UHBVN Ltd. Disttt. Yamuna Nagar.
3. Chairman, Uttar Haryana BijliVitran Nigam Ltd. Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        …Respondents

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Rahul Singla Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Sh. Dharamvir Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents.             

 

ORDER

1                      Complainant Jashpal has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to restore the services of the electricity to the tubewell connection of the complainant and further not to charge electricity charges and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is a farmer and having his agriculture land approximate 22 acres in the revenue area of Jathlana near Yamuna Nagar River. The complainant has two tubewell connections vide No. J3-0233 and J3-0372 for the irrigation purpose of his land and the Ops Nigam are supplier of electricity, hence, there exists a relationship of consumer and supplier between the parties. The complainant regularly paid the electricity bills of the abovesaid tubewell connections till August 2010. However, in the month of August 2010, a heavy flood become and due to that electricity supply of the abovesaid tubewell connections got disturbed. In the month of September, 2010, the Yamuna Nagar River become normal and after finding everything normal, the complainant again and again went to the office of Op No.1 i.e. SDO Radaur for restoring the electric supply of the tubewell connections, so that he irrigated his land but the Ops did not pay any heed till today. The complainant due to the negligence and carelessness of the Op Nigam suffer a huge financial loss as both the tubewell connections were not working and complainant irrigating his land with diesel generator. A few days ago when the complainant again met with the Ops but this time the Ops flatly refused to do anything and further threatened to the complainant that if he will not pay the amount of the bills, they will cut the tubewell connections. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi, complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct, complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts and on merit it is denied that complainant was not having tubewell connections. However, it is admitted that due to flood, electricity supply was damaged badly and the same has not been restored due to the lack of infrastructure and necessary material to restore the supply because the damage suffered was on large scale. As far as the payment of bills by the complainant is concerned, the complainant is defaulter in making the bills prior to deluge. It has been further mentioned that as and when the material will be available, the electricity supply will be restored and the necessary requirement of material has been written to the Higher Authority of the Nigam. Rest contents of the complaint have been denied being wrong and incorrect. Lastly prayed that there is no negligence on the part of Ops because the loss is due to flood which is the act of God and there is no control of the Ops over it.

4.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of application dated 5.10.2010 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of bill for the month of January 2013 for account bearing No. J3-0233 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of bill dated 01.02.2013 on account bearing No. J3-372 as Annexure C-4 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Bhupinder Singh, SDO as annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copy of account statement of bearing account No. J3-372 as Annexure R-1 and account statement bearing accountNo. J3-233 as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

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

7.                     It is not disputed that the complainant was having two electricity tubewell connections bearing account No. J3-233 and J3-372 which is evident from the copy of bills Annexure C-2 and C-3 in his name.it is also not disputed that in the month of August, 2010 there was a heavy flood and due to that entire electricity supply got disturbed as well as the electricity supply of the tubewell connections of the complainant. It is also not disputed that in the month of September 2010 Yamuna Nagar River become normal and after that complainant visited the office of the Ops and moved an application for restoration of the electricity supply of the tubewell connections which is evident from the copy of application dated 05.10.2010 (Annexure C-1).

8.                     The only plea of the Ops Nigam is that due to heavy flood the electricity supply was badly damaged and the same has not been restored due to lack of infrastructure and necessary material and as when the material will be available the electricity supply will be restored. Whereas on the other hand, counsel for the complainant hotly argued that a considerable time of near about 6 years have been elapsed but the Ops Nigam deliberately willfully and due to the reasons best known to them for not restoring the electricity connections to the tubewell connections of the complainant and due to that complainant is suffering huge financial loss on account of crop as well as payment of electricity bills. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that it is admitted case of the Ops that electricity supply of the complainant has not been restored till today but inspite of that the OP Nigam is issuing the electricity bill and huge amount has been shown against the complainant and complainant has been declared a defaulter. Lastly, prayed for acceptance of complaint.

9.                     After hearing the parties and going through the documents carefully and minutely, we are of the considered view that there is a great deficiency in service on the part of Ops Nigam,as the electricity supply to the tubewell connection of the complainant was damaged in the month of August 2010, due to heavy flood but after that in the month of September 2010 Yamuna Nagar River as well as everything become normal but the Ops Nigam has totally failed to restore the electricity supply of the tubewell connection of the complainant within a reasonable period as more than 5 years have been elapsed. Even the Ops Nigam has totally failed to file any documentary evidence to prove their version that what step has been taken by them to restore the electricity supply. Mere mentioning in the written statement that as and when material will be available with them, further the requirement of the material has been written to the Higher Authorities of the Nigam, is not sufficient to prove that there is no deficiency or negligence in service on the part of Nigam. Even no request letter or requirement letter has been placed on file by the Ops Nigam to prove the stand taken in the written statement. So, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to get relief.

10.                   However, as far as the payment of the bills is concerned when it is admitted case of the Ops that the electricity supply f the tubewell connections of the complainant bearing No. J3-233 and J3-372 has been damaged due to flood and till today has not been restored by the Ops Nigam, so, we are of the view that the Ops Nigam is also not entitled to get the electricity charges whatsoever from the complainant as mentioned in the account statement as Annexure R-1 and R-2.

11.                   However, as far as the financial loss on account of crop is concerned, we are of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled to get anything as no cogent evidence has been filed by the complainant to prove the crop loss.

12.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Ops Nigam as the Ops Nigam has totally failed to restore the electricity supply of the complainant within a considerable time.

13.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Ops to restore the electricity supply of the tubewell connections bearing No. J3-233 and J3-372 within a period of 30 days. Further the Ops are also directed not to charge the electricity bills from the month when the electricity supply of the connections become out of order due to flood till the restoration of the electricity connections, further to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. 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 in open court.10.05.2016.

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA )          

                                                                                                 MEMBER