Haryana

Sonipat

CC/223/2015

SHRI DHARAMBIR SINGH S/O OM PARKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

U.H.B.V.N.L. through S.D.O. - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Sharma

15 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                Complaint No.223 of 2015

Instituted on: 10.07.2015                                                     

Date of order: 15.02.2017

 

 

Dharambir Singh son of Om Parkash, resident of village Chitana, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.          Versus

1. UHBVN Ltd. through its SDO Murthal Sub Division Sonepat office at Opp. Sector 15 Rajiv Colony, Sonepat.

2.Jasbir Punia, JE Sub Office Bhatgaon, son of Sh. Lal Chand, r/o village Didwadi, tehsil Ishrana, Distt. Panipat.

3.Azad Driver

4.Satbir ALM UHBVN Ltd., Sub Division Office, Bhatgaon.

5.Rajesh son of Kartar Singh (Fauji) resident of Narayana road, Rajiv Colony, Gali no.2, near Jai Maa Bhandar cum Building Material Store, tehsil Samalkha, distt. Panipat.

 

                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Hemant Sharma Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Baljit Khatri, Advocate for respondent no.1.

           Sh. Tarun Kaushik, Adv. for respondent no.2.

Sh. Gaurav Dahiya Adv.for respondent no.3.

           Sh. Sunil Saroha, Adv. for respondent no.4.

           Respondent no.5 ex-parte on 17.10.2014.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          Prabha Wati-Member.

           J.L. Gupta- Member.

          

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has approached the respondents for the release of electricity connection through respondent no.4 and 5 by paying a sum of Rs.one lac in the year 2014.  The respondents assured the complainant for installing the tubewell connection meter.  The respondent no.5 installed electric poles as well as put transformer in the field of the complainant and also provided electricity supply, but the respondents have failed to provide the electricity meter and amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents no.1, 2, 3 & 4 have appeared and they filed their separate written statement, whereas respondent no.5 was proceeded against ex-parte.

         The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that the complainant never applied for any tubewell connection and never deposited any application or amount in the office of the respondent on.1 or in the sub office.  If any amount personally paid to the respondents no.4 and 5, the same is not binding on the department.  If any fraud has been committed by respondents no.4 and 5, then the respondents no.4 and 5 are only liable.  The respondent no.1 has every right to disconnect the electricity supply and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.

         The respondent no.2 in its reply has submitted that in this scheme, JE is not involved in any way.  The respondent no.2 never met the complainant. The respondent no.2 did not issue any receipt. The respondent no.2 never took any security amount. The respondent no.2 did not receive any money for installation of tubewell.  The respondent no.2 did not give any assurance to the complainant for installation of electricity line, meter and transformer etc.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         The respondent no.3 in its reply has submitted that the complainant neither moved any application for releasing the connection for his tubewell nor he deposited the required security amount.  The respondent no.3 is not authorized person to release the connection for the tubewell of the complainant.  He is working as a driver with the UHBVN Department and he has no power to release the tubewell connection.  Two false criminal cases under section 420/406/409/120B and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act vide FIR no.360 dated 13.7.2015 have been registered against the respondent no.3 alongwith other respondents.  The complainant himself has committed the offence of theft of electricity energy.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.3 as the complainant never applied for the tubewell connection with the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         The respondent no.4 has submitted that the respondent never paid any amount to the respondent no.4 because he has no right to release the electricity tubewell connection or to provide any electricity meter to the complainant.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent no.4.  No fraud has been played by the respondent no.4 with the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.4.

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. 

4.       After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant material available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

         As per the complainant, the respondents no.4 and 5 got deposited Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/-  as security amount vide receipt no.047728 dated 13.3.2008 and the respondents no.4 and 5 have obtained Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant in the year 2014.  The complainant has placed on record the receipt no.047728 dated 13.3.2008 (Annexure C1) and name of the complainant is mentioned in this receipt.  As per the complainant, the  respondents got erected the poles, wires and installed transformer in the fields of the complainant, but they did not install any electricity meter or any account number to the complainant. So, in our view, since the UHBVN department has received the amount of Rs.1500/- from the complainant, the complainant comes under the definition of consumer.

         The complainant has also placed on record the copy of report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Annexure C-7 which proves that the criminal case was registered against the JE and contract.

         Further we have perused the statement of Dilbagh Singh Dhilon JE Sub office UHBVN Bhatgaon Annexure C9 and in this statement, Dilbagh Singh Dhilon has stated that the checking was conducted at the spot and the checking report was also prepared at the spot.  He has also stated that the poles, wire, transformer and other equipments found installed on the connection of the consumers, belongs to the department.

         He has also stated that “Jo Samaan Store Se Jaari Kiya Jata Hai Wah Store Se Allocation Samaan Ki Shri Suresh Kumar Ahuja XEN Ki Permission Se Storekeeper Dwara JE Ke Hawale Kiya Jata Hai.”

         In our view, no item can be issued from the store of UHBVN until and unless some amount for the release of the item is deposited with the UHBVN.  There is a procedure for issuance of any item from the store of UHBVN and effective entry is also made for the release of any item and name of the person is also entered in the record to whom the said item is issued.  So, without deposit of any amount with the UHBVN, it is not possible to get installed the poles, wires, transformers etc. for the supply of electricity to the tubewell of the complainant.

         In the present case, from the statement of Shri Dilbagh Singh Dhilon JE of the UHBVN department, it is clearly established that the necessary approval for the release of equipments i.e. poles, wire, transformer etc. was granted to the officials of the respondents by Shri Suresh Kumar Ahuja XEN and that’s why, the poles, wires and transformer were erected and electricity supply to the tubewell of the complainant was provided.  Further it is proved that the respondents have received Rs.1,14,000/- from the complainant and they got installed the poles, wires, transformers and supplied the electricity supply to the tubewell of the complainant, but they did not install any electricity meter or any account number to the complainant.

          We also find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondents because one of the similar complaint bearing no.325 of 2015  titled as Arjan Dass Vs. UHBVN etc. was allowed by this Forum vide order dated 8.8.2016 and the following order was passed by this Forum:-

          “It is directed to the respondents not to disconnect the electricity supply of the complainant.  Further it is directed to the respondents to install the electricity meter to the tubewell of the complainant and further to regularize the electricity connection of the complainant without demanding any amount from the complainant.”

          The respondent UHBVN filed First Appeal No.817 of 2016 titled as UHBVN Vs. Arjan Dass before the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula and the same was decided vide order dated 06.01.2017 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula and the following order was passed:-

          “There is no denying fact that the transformer was issued from the store of the UHBVNL.  The consumer/complaint cannot know as to whether the JE who is an official of the UHBVNL, was acting under the instructions or in violation of the instructions of his superiors.  The fact that JE got the transformer issued from the store of UHBVNL and got installed it on theh poles and connected the connection, is not disputed.  So, the complainant was not to be blamed for it.  Shri Sandeep Sikri, SDO who is present in person, confirmed the installation of transformer on poles in the fields of the complainant and even the connection being released, though he states that it is an unauthorized release of connection. Photograph with respect to erection of poles and installation of transfer has been placed on the file, which supports the case of the complainant.  Thus, on the basis of the evidence available on the record, the impugned order does not require any interference.  Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits”.

         Thus, taking into consideration the order dated 06.01.2017 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula as mentioned above, we hereby allow the present complaint with the direction to the respondents to regularize the electricity connection of the complainant without demanding any amount from the complainant.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

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

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati) (JL Gupta)            (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF, Member, DCDRF           President, DCDRF

Sonepat.      Sonepat.                Sonepat.

 

Announced  15.02.2017