BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No.571 of 2011
Date of Instt. 9.09.2011
Date of decision: 25.02.2015
Ram Kumar son of Sh.Hari Chand resident of village Dingermajra tehsil Gharaunda District Karnal.
……..Complainant.
Vs.
1.The AEE/SDO, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Gharaunda District Karnal.
2.Executive Engineer, S/U Division No.2, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Jarrnailly Colony, Karnal.
3.Superintending Engineer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Kunjpura Road, Karnal.
…..Opposite Parties.
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.
Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma ……Member.
Argued by:- Sh.S.S.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.G.S.Arora Advocate for the Ops.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that complainant is having a tubewell connection vide account No. AP32-1118-W. The complainant got the load of the said tubwell connection extended and at present a transformer of 20 BHP has been installed by the Ops. In the month of April, 2010 the complainant requested the Ops to extend the load as 22.5 BHP and fulfilled all the formalities and the clerk concerned of the OP no.1 also issued a receipt no.131 Book No.061584 dated 19.4.2010 to the complainant and the OP no.1 also assured that as per the extended load a transformer of 25 BHP would be installed within a week. On the assurance of the OP no.1, the complainant purchased the motor of 22.5 BHP for his tubwell. Since 19.4.2010 the complainant is paying the bills of his said connection as per extended load but the transformer of 25 HP has not yet been installed by the Ops which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed the present complaint and has requested that the Ops be directed to install a new transformer as per load i.e. 22.5 HP and , to refund the excess amount received since April, 2010 and to pay compensation for the harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. He has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contents of the complaint alongwith some other documents.
2. On notice the Ops appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the present complaint was not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and to try the present complaint.
On merits, it was contended that after the receipt of the application of the complainant for extension of the load, the estimate for change of the transformer was prepared by the competent staff of the Nigam and the required material was to be supplied by the XEN Sub Urban No.II, Karnal and a letter bearing Memo No.2166 dated 11.11.2011 has been issued by the OP no.1 and as and when the material will be available, the transformer of the complainant would be changed. There was no intentional fault on the part of the Ops. It was also contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and dismissal of the complaint has been sought. Sh.Yashbir Singh, SDO of the Ops has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contentions made in the written statement.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
4. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops alleging deficiency in services on the allegations that he is having a tubewell connection vide account No. AP32-1118-W. The complainant got the load of the said tubwell connection extended and at present a transformer of 20 BHP has been installed by the Ops. In the month of April, 2010 the complainant requested the Ops to extend the load as 22.5 BHP and fulfilled all the formalities and the clerk concerned of the OP no.1 also issued a receipt no.131 Book No.061584 dated 19.4.2010 to the complainant and the OP no.1 also assured that as per the extended load a transformer of 25 HP would be installed within a week. On the assurance of the OP no.1, the complainant purchased the motor of 22.5 BHP for his tubwell since 19.4.2010 but the transformer of 25 HP has not yet been installed but has started charging the electricity consumption bills on the extended load of 22.5 BHP
5. However, as per the contention of the Ops the amount has rightly been charged for consuming electricity energy as the load was extended to 22.5BHP w.e.f. 24.6.2010. It was also pointed out that a theft had taken place regarding the transformer of the complainant which was replaced as shown in Ex.O2 and as such there was no defficiency in services on the part of the Ops. It was also pointed out that one BHP is equivalent to .746 Watt and as such 22.5 BHP was equivalent to 16.785 KW and the transformer of 20 HP was sufficient to supply the load of 22.5 BHP and as such the amount has rightly been charged by taking the consumption @ 22.5 BHP from the date when the complainant deposited the amount for extension of the load.
6. Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on the file it emerges that the complainant applied for enhancement of the load in the month of April, 2010 and the OPs enhanced the load of the complainant and thereafter charged the electricity consumption taking the enhanced load of 22.5BHP as shown in Ex.C1 in the ledger account (the photo copy of which has been placed on the file). There is nothing on the file in order to infer that prior to the request for enhancement of the load the Ops have charged amount @ enhanced capacity rather from the record, it is evident that electricity consumption charges have been changed at the higher capacity of 22.5 BHP w.e.f. 24.6.2010 i.e. Subsequent to the enhancement of the load capacity in view of the request of the complainant.
7. The argument that 25 HP transformer was installed later on and as such enhanced charges can be charged only from the date of installation of new transformer of 25, BHP is totally whimsical and devoid of any merit. It is pertinent to mention here that transformer of 25 BHP was installed because the earlier transformer was stolen as shown in Ex.O2. The transformer of 20 HP was sufficient to provide the load of 22.5 BHP and as such there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.
8. Therefore, as a sequel to our above discussion, we dismiss the present complaint. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated: 25.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member
Argued by:- Sh.S.S.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.G.S.Arora Advocate for the Ops
Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 25.2.2015.
Announced
dated: 20.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member
Argued by:- Sh.S.S.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.G.S.Arora Advocate for the Ops
Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated: 25.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member
