Haryana

Sonipat

304/2014

1. JAGDEV S/O SURAT SINGH,2. DHARMENDER,3. JOGINDER S/O JAGDEV SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE SUB DIVISION OFFICER UHBVNL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

JAGDISH KUMAR ROHILLA

31 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                  Complaint No.304 of 2014

Instituted on: 11.11.2014                                                      

Date of order:  18.08.2015

 

 

1.Jagdev Singh son of Surat Singh,

2.Dharminder

3.Joginder both sons of Jagdev Singh sons of Surat Singh, resident of village Saidpur, tehsil Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.             Versus

SDO  UHBVN Ltd.  Kharkhoda, Distt.  Sonepat.

                                                                                                                                …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. J.K. Rohila, Advocate for complainant.

            Sh. Baljit Khatri, Advocate for respondent.

 

Before-     Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

1.        Complainants have filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that they have planted garden in the land as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint.  The complainant no.1 had taken tubewell connection from the respondent bearing no.SP4/52 and had been paying the electricity bills regularly. The complainants irrigated the land of the garden till 3/2014, but later-on, the respondent disconnected the supply by removing the jumper of feeder of the village.  The complainant made a report to the Horticulture Officer, Kharkhoda who  visited the spot on 06.05.2014 and reported that the irrigation of the garden is necessary with the interval of 10-15 days failing which the plants would destroy.  It is also alleged that due to the sole negligence of the respondent, the whole plants of Guava (Amrood) planted in the garden  were badly destroyed thereby causing a huge loss to the tune of Rs.4 lacs to the complainant. So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has alleged that the electricity line in the area is temporarily disconnected on the representation of Sarpanch of village during the harvesting season because there is apprehension of any fire incident in the wheat crops. The report of Horticulture Officer is not applicable in this case.  The bills produced by the complainant are false and forged one.  The complainant has not suffered any loss.  There is also no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  The complainant is not entitled for any kind of relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

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.

          Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the electricity line in the area is temporarily disconnected on the representation of Sarpanch of village during the harvesting season because there is apprehension of any fire incident in the wheat crops. The report of Horticulture Officer is not applicable in this case.  The bills produced by the complainant are false and forged one.  The complainant has not suffered any loss.  There is also no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  The complainant is not entitled for any kind of relief and compensation.

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also argued his case vehemently.  But keeping in view the material available on the case file, we find no force in the present complaint.

          We have perused the report dated 6.5.2014 of District Horticulture Officer and its associates.  In the above said report, numbers and age of  the trees have not been mentioned.   However, in this report, it is mentioned that due to non-supply of water, the Guava trees are being destroyed.

          On the contrary, the complainant has placed on record the bills Ex.C6 to C21 to prove that he has to pay the huge amount to Satish Pardhan Filter Water Supplier for the purchase of water.  This Forum failed to understand when the complainant has to pay the huge amount for the purchase of water, then how the Guava trees can be destroyed due to non-supply of water.

          Further the complainant has placed on record the document Ex.C21 to prove the purchase of 110 Guava trees on 22.5.2014.  On the contrary, the report of Horticulture Department is of dated 6.5.2014.  It means, the purchase of 110 Guava trees by the complainant on 22.5.2014 is after the date of inspection dated 6.5.2014 by the Horticulture Department. There is nothing on record to prove that the previous existing Guava trees were destroyed and that’s why, the complainant has to purchase fresh 110 Guava trees on 22.5.2014.

          We have also perused the document Ex.C28 i.e. photo copy of complaint register of electricity department.  As per the entries, the complainant made the complaint dated 12.4.2014 and 2.5.2014 regarding removal of the fault in the electricity supply.  The fault in the electricity supply was removed by the concerned JE of UHBVN on 4.5.2014.  So, if there was any fault in the  electricity supply though it is for few days, it cannot effect the Guava trees due to non-supply of water.

          During the course of arguments, the respondent has also placed on record the document JN dated 4.8.2015 wherein it has been mentioned by the Sarpanch namely Satish that the electricity supply was got disconnected by the UHBVN on their request and to avoid any untoward incident of fire during the season of wheat harvesting.   NO loss has been suffered by Jagdev son of Surat Singh, Dharambir and Joginder son of Jagdev Singh, because the trees have gone very high.  For irrigation purposes, they have also installed the engine.  There is no fault of the electricity department in any manner.

          We have perused the document JN placed on record by the respondent and have also perused the bills Ex.C6 to C20 regarding purchase of water from Satish Pardhan.  Both these documents are contrary to each other, because on one hand, Satish Pardhan is issuing the bills to the complainant for purchase of water from him and on the other hand, he has issued the document JN dated 4.8.2015 stating therein that no loss of any kind has been caused to the garden of Jagdev son of Surat Singh, Dharambir & Joginder sons of Jagdev by the electricity department.  Both these documents create suspicion in the mind of this Forum.

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that previously also similar complaint was decided by this Forum vide order dated 22.7.2013. So, the complainant is also entitled to get suitable compensation from the respondent in this complaint also.

          But we find no force in this contention of the ld. Counsel for the complainant.  The complainant cannot get any benefit of the previous order dated 22.7.2013 passed in his favour by this Forum.  However, it proves that the complainant is habitual in filing the complaints one after the other.  If the present complaint is also allowed, it will give more encouragement to the complainant for filing such & similar complaint in future against the electricity department.  In our view, the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint against the department. 

          As far as the present complaint is concerned, in our view, keeping in view the findings and observations as discussed above in the preceding paras, we find no force in the present complaint and the complainant is not entitled for any kind of relief against the respondents because the complainant has miserably failed to prove any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  Rather the respondent has been able to prove the act and conduct of the complainant.  Thus, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs.

          Certified copy of this order he provided to both the parties free of cost.

          File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced : 18.08.2015