BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.468 of 2013
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 06.11.2013
DATE OF ORDER: 03.03.2017
Honorary Capt. Het Ram aged 70 years son of Shri Amichand, resident of village Legha Hetvan, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
…………… Complainant
VERSUS
- Superintending Engineer Operation Circle, DHBVNL, Bhiwani.
- Xen Operation Circle Tosham, DHBVNL, Bhiwani.
- SDO DHBVNL, Tosham.
- Junior Engineer, DHBVNL, Tosham.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Mrs Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Dariya Singh, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present complaint are that due to fast winds two electricity poles were broken in the month of May 2012 and the electricity supply to the tubewell of the complainant was disconnected. It is alleged that the complainant made a complaint on 09.05.2012 to the OP no. 3 and thereafter the complainant made repeated requests but both electricity poles were not installed by the Ops and the supply could not be resumed to the tubewell of the complainant till the filing of this complaint. Thereafter, the complainant suffered huge losses to his crops. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement alleging therein that on receipt of application of the complainant, the employee of the Nigam visited at the spot and it was told to the complainant that at present poles are not available in the store and it was requested to the complainant that if he would provide the same, they would installed the same but the complainant refused to do so. It is submitted that the answering respondent has not received any notice. It is submitted that the crops of the complainant are standing in the fields at spot and there is no loss has been caused to the complainant. It is submitted that the answering respondent wrote letter to the higher authority for sanctioning of the poles and after sanctioning from the higher authority when the employee of the Nigam visited for installation of the poles, but due restricted by other field owners, the poles could not be installed. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure P-1 to Annexure P-5.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
5.
Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that due to fast winds two electricity poles were broken in the month of May 2012. Hence, the electricity supply to the tubewell of the complainant was disconnected. The complainant made a complaint on 09.05.2012 to the OP no. 3 and thereafter the complainant made repeated requests but both electricity poles were not installed by the Ops and the supply could not be resumed to the tubewell of the complainant till the filing of this complaint. Thereafter, the complainant suffered huge losses to his crops.
6. The counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the tubewell connection was given to the complainant under the self finance scheme. The electricity poles were not available in the store of the Ops. Hence, the complainant was asked to provide the same but the complainant refused to do so. The OP no. 3 after getting sanction from the higher authorities visited the spot for erecting the poles but the owners of the field refused to install the poles because the crops were standing. The counsel for the Ops submitted that there is no fault on the part of the Ops. He further submitted that the complainant has not produced any Farad Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari regarding the area of crops and loss to the crops as alleged by him. The complainant is not entitled to claim any amount on account of loss to his crops.
7. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. Indisputably, the supply to the tubewell of the complainant was disrupted due to falling of two electricity poles caused by fast winds. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant submitted that the poles were installed in the month of March 2014 and the meter was installed on 15.07.2014 and thereafter the supply of electricity was resumed to the tubewell of the complainant. It means the supply of electricity to the tubewell of the complainant remained disrupted for a period of about 2 years. The complainant has claimed compensation for the loss to his crops. The complainant has failed to adduce cogent evidence in support of his contention regarding the loss to his crops. No copy of Farad Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawri for the relevant period has been placed by the complainant on the record to prove the loss to his crops. Nothing has come on the file on behalf of the complainant the extent of loss to the crops of the complainant. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the delay on the part of the Ops in erecting the electricity poles and resume the electricity supply to the tubewell of the complainant. The amount of award shall be adjusted by the Ops in the future electricity bills of the complainant. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:03.03.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member. Member
