Haryana

Karnal

356/2011

Daria Singh S/o Jug Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Uttar Haryana Bijle Vitran Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ram Mehar

14 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                                 Complaint No.356 of 2011

                                                               Date of instt. 14.06.2011

                                                               Date of decision: 14.06.2016

 

Daria Singh son of Shri Jug Lal resident of village Padha, District Karnal.

                  

                                                                             ………….Complainant.       

                                                         Versus

 

1. The Managing Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

2. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Division village Jundla, District Karnal through its Sub Divisional-Officer.

.                                          

                                                                            ………..Opposite Parties.

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present       Sh. Ram Mehar Sharma Advocate for the Complainant.

                   Sh. G.S. Arora Advocate for opposite parties.

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that opposite parties had provided electricity connection for tubewell bearing account no.AP33-1154-L. He had been paying the electricity bills regularly and without any delay. His electricity connection was provided through a transformer connected with 13 poles. However, 1½ years ago, the opposite parties removed five poles and disconnected the supply of electricity to his tubewell without any reason or fault on his part. He approached the opposite parties, but they did not give any satisfactory reply, rather asked to wait for two months. Finding no other alternative, he continued to run his tubewell through generator by purchasing costly diesel. After two months, he again approached the opposite parties for restoration of his connection, but the opposite parties postponed the matter one pretext or the other and did not restore his electricity connection despite repeated requests. Such conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service on their part, which caused him mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the  complainant has no locus standi;  that the complaint is not legally maintainable in the present forum; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that the complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties; that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint in view of provisions of section 145 of the Indian Electricity Act and that the complaint is an abuse of the process of law.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the connection of the complainant was disconnected by the opposite parties on 21.8.2008 and Permanent Disconnection Order (PDCO) was prepared but the same could not be effected in the record. The connection was disconnected due to non-payment of the bills. However, in January 2010 the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- to the Nigam out of the outstanding amount and thereafter an amount of Rs.8700/- was adjusted from the account of his son Ranbir Singh as security of SP connection and after adjustment the amount of Rs.2905/- was outstanding upto July, 2011. On 12.8.2011 Sub Divisional Officer and Junior Engineer visited the site and found that there was no bore of the complainant and the line was removed by the opposite parties under the HVDS Scheme, because there was apprehension of theft of electricity from the said line and poles. The complainant did not disclose about new site of his bore, therefore, work of HVDS scheme could not be completed. In this way, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, therefore, complainant is not entitled to any compensation. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavitsEx.C1 and Ex.C/A and copy of news paper cutting Ex.C2 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Pardeep  Bhoora Sub Divisional Officer Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O22 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                There is no dispute that the complainant was having one tubewell connection bearing no.AP33-1154-L, but said connection was disconnected by the opposite parties. It is submitted by the opposite parties that the connection was disconnected on 21.8.2008 due to non-payment of the electricity bills. It has further been submitted that on 12.8.2011  when Junior Engineer and Sub Divisional Officer visited the site they found that the complainant was not having any tubewell bore for his electricity connection, therefore, the spare LT line was got removed, apprehending theft of electricity from the said spare line. The copy of the letter of the complainant Ex.O10 shows that he had connection for his tubwell  bearing account no.V195, but his tubewell bore had failed, therefore, he got tubewell bore done in the other land. He requested the Sub Divisional Officer to shift his electricity connection, the transformer and the electricity line to his new tubewell bore and he was ready to deposit the requisite charges. The documents Ex.O12 to O18 relate to the estimate prepared for shifting electric connection of the complainant.  As per the receipt Ex.O20 the complainant deposited 1½ % charges of the assessment under self financing scheme for getting shifted his electricity connection. Thereafter, the electricity connection of the complainant was shifted and he accepted that fact, as is evident from Ex.O21.

7.                Thus, from the evidence on record, it is established that the tubewell connection of the complainant was disconnected due to non-payment of electricity bills in 2008 and thereafter his tubewell bore failed due to which the spare LT line was got removed by the opposite parties. When the complainant deposited the requisite amount for shifting his tubewell connection at the new tubewell bore, the connection was duly shifted. These facts and circumstances indicate that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 14.06.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member