Lal singh S/o.Swaran Singh filed a consumer case on 30 Jan 2017 against U.H.B.V.N in the Yamunanagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/305/2012 and the judgment uploaded on 06 Feb 2017.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR
Complaint No. 305 of 2012.
Date of institution: 26.03.2012
Date of decision: 30.01.2017
Lal Singh aged about 54 yeas son of Sh. Swaran Singh, resident of Gobindpura, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
…Complainant.
Versus
...Respondents
BEFORE: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.
SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Lal Singh Datana, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Satish Sangwan, Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
1 The present complaint has been filed by Sh. Lal Singh under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that an electric tubewell connection is installed in the field of the complainant vide account No. RK0954 and the complainant was paying the electricity bills regularly without any fault. On 23.12.2012, transformer which was installed on the said tubewell of the complainant was stolen and an FIR No. 15 dated 24.12.2012 was registered in the police station Sadar, Jagadhri. The said transformer was not recovered by the police till today nor the OPs Nigam has installed any other transformer in the field of the complainant. Due to the negligence of the Ops Nigam the wheat crop of the complainant was damaged due to non-irrigation. Complainant has visited so many times to the office of the OPs Nigam and requested to install the said transformer as soon as possible but all in vain. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs Nigam to install the transformer and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed its written statement jointly besides preliminary objections it was admitted that transformer of the complainant was stolen as per FIR. Rest contents of the complaint were denied. It has been further stated that in the theft cases the matter was forwarded to the Chief Operation Works, Panchkula and the matter was also reported to the Chief. As per further report the transformer was allotted on 12.06.2012 and the same was installed on 15.06.2012. Hence, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In support of the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Bills as Annexure C-1 and C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
5. On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence short affidavit of Sh. Jagmeet Singh, SDO, UHBVNL Chhachhrauli as Annexure RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.
7. The only grievances of the complainant is that transformer installed on his tubewell connection bearing No. RK0954 was stolen on 23.02.2012 and despite that OPs Nigam has not replaced the same despite so many requests due to which complainant has suffered loss on account of non-irrigation of wheat crop.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued at length that on intimation the matter was forwarded to the Chief Operation Works, Panchkula and after that a transformer was allotted on 12.06.2012 and the same was installed on 15.06.2012. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops Nigam and requested for dismissal of complaint.
9. After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that as the grievances of the complainant has been redressed by the OPs Nigam by installing the transformer within 2-3 months from the date of filing of the complaint and further the complainant has totally failed to file any cogent evidence to prove that he has suffered financial loss due to non-irrigating of the wheat crop as alleged in the complaint. Even, the complainant has also not placed on file any fard jamabandi or Khasra Girdawari to prove that he sown any wheat crop in the field and further has suffered any financial loss. Hence, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, so we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.
10. Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record rom after due compliance.
Pronounced in open court: 30.01.2017.
(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)
PRESIDENT
DCDRF Yamuna Nagar
(S.C.SHARMA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.