Haryana

Sonipat

CC/273/2015

Surender Alias Silender S/o Ishwar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

SURESH MALIK

15 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                Complaint No.273 of 2015

Instituted on: 11.08.2015                                                     

Date of order: 15.02.2017

 

 

Surender alias Silender son of Ishwar Singh, resident of village Mahra, tehsil and Distt. Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.          Versus

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

2.Jasbir Punia JE UHBVN Sub office Bhatgaon, Distt. Sonepat and son of Lal Chand, r/o village Didwari, tehsil Ishrana, Distt. Panipat.

3.Dilbagh Foreman, UHBVN Sub Office Bhatgaon, Distt. Sonepat.

4.Azad Driver

5.Satbir ALM UHBVN Sub Office Bhatgaon, distt. Sonepat.

6.Rajesh (Contractor)  UHBVN office at Sub office Bhatgaon and son of Kartar Singh (Fauji) r/o Narajana road, Rajiv Colony, Gali no.2, near Jai Ma Bhandar-cum-Building Material Store, Samalkha, tehsil Samalkha, distt. Panipat.

                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Suresh Malik Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Amit Balyan, Advocate for respondent no.1.

           Respondent no.2 ex-parte on 17.01.2017.

           Respondent no.3,4 and 5 ex-parte on 13.1.2016.

           Respondent no.6 ex-parte on 01.12.2016.

 

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.  The respondents no.2 and 4 met the complainant with respondent on.6 and both the respondents got deposited an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- from the complainant in the month of 4/2014.  The respondents no.2 and 6 did ont issue any receipt of the amount taken by them and they assured that they will get erect the line, poles and will also install the meter and transformer at their own.  They respondents no.2,4 and 6 under the supervision of other respondents got installed the poles, wires and transformer  and supplied the electricity to the tubewell of the complainant.  But they did not install the electricity meter and also did not give any account number to the complainant. The complainant has requested the respondents several times to install the electricity meter and to regularize the electricity connections, but of no use and that 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 has appeared only and has filed their reply, whereas the respondents no.2 to 6 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.1.2016 and 01.12.2016 respectively.

         The respondents no.1 in their reply has submitted that no amount was deposited by the complainant with the respondent no.1.  The complainant never deposited any amount or documents with the respondent no.1 as per memo no.1526 dated 15.1.2016.  The respondent no.1 never installed any poles,  wires and transformer etc. The respondent no.1, however, is liable to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant as the same is not installed by the Nigam.  There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondent no.1 and the complainant is not entitled for any kind of relief & compensation from the respondent no.1 and has, 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.  

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 respondent no.2 Jasbir Punia and respondent no.4 Azad driver met the complainant with respondent no.6 Rajesh contractor and they both got deposited an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- from the complainant in the month of April, 2014. They themselves 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.

         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.

         The present case is also same and similar like the complaint no.183 of 2016 titled as Rajender Vs. UHBVNB Ltd. and this complaint was decided by this Forum vide order dated 23.11.2016. The complainant has placed on record the copy of certified copy of order dated 23.11.2016 passed by this Forum in complaint no.183 of 2016 titled as Rajender Vs. UHBVN Ltd.

         In our view, it is proved by the complainant that the respondents no.2, 4  and 6 got deposited Rs.1,35,000/- from the complainant in the month of 4/2014 and 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.

                        Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has also argued his case vehemently, but we 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