BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 464 of 2022
Date of Institution : 26.07.2022.
Date of Decision : 21.11.2023.
Rajesh Kumar Advocate aged about 51 years son of Shri Gurdayal Mehta, resident of village Khuiyan Malkana, District Sirsa, now residing in Multani Colony, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Superintending Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Sirsa.
2. Executive Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Dabwali.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division, D.H.B.V.N. Dabwali.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR …………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………….MEMBER
Present: Sh. G.S. Chahal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Yogesh Modi, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist having agricultural land in village Khuyian Malkana. He has got installed a transformer of 63 KVA in his fields for the last so many years continuously for the irrigation of his land. That complainant applied for getting two electric connections No.T31-318-14-AP and T31-318-15-AP in his village whereas three connections over the said transfer of 10 HP each were existing. That for this purpose complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.1,03,510/- vide receipt No. T31754078 dated 31.12.2019 for installation of new transformer. It is further averred that now both the connections have been released to the complainant and now on the above said transformer of 63 KVA, five electric connections of 10 HP each have been running smoothly on the spot without any interruption from any corner and complainant has no requirement for a new transformer, hence he is legally entitled to refund of amount of Rs.1,03,510/- from the Nigam. That complainant approached the ops and requested the officials of Nigam to refund the above said amount and also moved an application dated 09.05.2022 to the Nigam but all in vain and the officials of the Nigam have given only assurances and have not refunded the above said amount to the complainant intentionally despite several others requests and even despite serving of legal notice dated 22.06.2022. That amount is required to the complainant for his urgent need and the act and conduct of ops amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on account of which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and mental agony. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared and filed written version submitting therein that complainant is not at all entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.1,03,510/- from the Nigam. The complainant never had approached the answering ops nor he has got any such legal right. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents i.e. estimate letter dated 06.03.2018 Ex.C1, receipt dated 31.12.2019 Ex.C2, application for refund of the amount Ex.C3, legal notice Ex.C4 and postal receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C7.
5. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sub Divisional Officer as Ex.R1.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. From the receipt dated 31.12.2019 Ex.C2 it is evident that complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,03,510/- with the ops for installation of a new transformer in his field. However, according to the complainant as his five electric connections of 10 HP each have been running smoothly on the transformer of 63 KVA already installed at the spot, therefore, complainant did not feel requirement of a new transformer and as such he applied for refund of the above said amount of Rs.1,03,510/- deposited with the ops. In this regard complainant has also placed on file copy of application Ex.C3 which was duly received by the ops on 09.05.2022. The ops have not shown their any rules by which complainant is not entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.1,03,510/- from the Nigam. It is proved on record that complainant vide his above said application applied to the ops for refund of his deposited amount and therefore, ops have wrongly asserted that complainant never approached them in this regard whereas the said application was duly received by ops on 09.05.2022 itself. The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 22.06.2022 upon ops but ops failed to refund the amount in question to the complainant. Admittedly the transformer for which the amount was deposited by the complainant with ops has also not been installed and therefore there was no reason for the ops not to refund the above said amount to the complainant and to withheld the same with them and as such ops are found deficient in service and they have caused unnecessary harassment to the complainant.
8. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to make refund of the amount of Rs.1,03,510/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 26.07.2022 till actual realization within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 21.11.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
