Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/247/2014

Ajaib Singh S/o Mukhtiar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sushil Kaushal

12 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                                Complaint No. 247 of 2014.

                                                                                                Date of institution: 23.05.2014

                                                                                                Date of decision: 12.04.2016.

 

Ajaib Singh aged about 45 years son of Shri Mukhtiar Singh, resident of Village Raipur ( Damoli) , Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                     …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. The S.D.O (OP) Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Division, Chhachhrauli, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.
2. X.En. Sub Urban Division, U.H.B.V.N. ltd. Chhachhrauli, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.
3. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through Managing Director/ Chairman, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.     

 

                                                                                                                   …Respondents.

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Sushil Kaushal, Advocate, counsel for complainant. 

              Sh. Zile Singh,  Advocate, counsel for respondents. 

 

ORDER

 

1                      Complainant Ajaib Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to receive the amount of estimate and to release the connection from Rural DS Feeder to Dera of complainant immediately after receipt of amount and further to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment, physical, mental and economical and further to pay Rs. 7700/- on account of litigation expenses.  

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that complainant  is having electric connection bearing account No. JH19-2725 in his residential house situated in Dera of village Raipur. The  complainant is residing in a Dera, constructed in the fields and the electricity is being supplied to the complainant through Agriculture supply, the voltage of which is very low and the complainant and his family are facing hardship due to low voltage. Previously, the OPs have launched a scheme by which the population of more than 10 persons residing in Dera, can obtain electricity supply from Rural DS feeder by sharing the costs of estimate. After coming to know about the scheme, the complainant moved an application for the same to OP No.1. The said application was accepted and was sent to OP No.2 for preparing estimate for approval and earlier sanction. Thereafter, an estimate No. SDJ-163/13-14 for an amount of Rs. 1,50,347/- was prepared and sanction for work was given vide memo No. 124/Est./Chh-/2013-14 dated 8.1.2014. On receipt of the abovesaid sanction, the complainant approached the OP No.1 for depositing the estimated amount but the OP No.1 did not accept the amount and asked the complainant to come after some days. After that the complainant has so many times approached the Op No.1 but OP No.1 flatly refused to receive the amount and to execute the said scheme for the reason best known to the respondents. The OPs by not receiving the estimated amount and not starting the sanctioned work have committed deficiency and negligence in service and monopoly and the complainant has been suffering a lot of mental agony and harassment. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, complainant has no locus standi or any cause of action, no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint and on merit it has been mentioned that the Nigam had launched the scheme of providing electric connection from rural DS feeder by sharing the costs of estimate as per circular No. U-53/2013 bearing Memo No. CH-90/SS-403/125/Dera Dhanis/ CGM/C-1 dated 28.10.2013 but the said scheme has now been suspended vide sale circular No. U-06/2014.  So, it is not possible for the OPs to provide alleged facility of rural DS Feeder which is in contravention of Nigam Orders. However, the estimate for providing electricity from rural DS feeder in the case of complainant was prepared and the same was considered and the complainant was directed to deposit the requisite amount with the Nigam in terms of sale circular No. U-53/2013, which the complainant failed to deposit the requisite amount with the OPs, therefore, the case of the complainant could not be considered.  It has been further mentioned that the complainant never approached the OP No.1 for depositing the alleged amount.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of sanction of estimate dated 8.1.2014 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of letter memo No. 3727 dated 27.12.2013 alongwith estimate as Annexure C-2 to C-4, Photo copy of rough site plan as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of application for providing connection from Rural DS feeder as Annexure C-6  and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Ashish Chopra, SDO (OP) Sub Divn. UHBVNL Chhachrauli as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copy of sale circular No. U-06/2014 dated 16.01.2014 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of sales circular No. U-53/2013 dated 28.10.2013 as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.     

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for OPs and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents carefully and minutely placed on file. 

7.                     It is admitted case of both the parties that complainant failed to deposit the requisite amount with the OPs as per circular No. U53/2013 dated 28.10.2013 during the currency of this circular and ultimately that scheme circulated vide circular No. U-90/SS/403/125/Dera Dhanis CGM/C-1 dated 28.10.2013 (Annexure R-2) was withdrawn by OPs vide sale circular No. U06/2014 dated 16.1.2014 (Annexure R-1). It is also not disputed that sanction of estimate was prepared by the OPs vide memo No. 124 dated 8.1.2014 which was prepared on the request of the SDO (OP) Sub Division vide their memo No. 3727 dated 27.12.2013, which is evident from Annexure C-1 to C-5. Learned counsel for the OPs argued that when the complainant has not deposited even a single penny with the Ops, so, he does not fall under the definition of Consumer as no services has been hired by the complainant for consideration and referred section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which is reproduced as under:

“Consumer” means any person who-

(i)                    buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid any partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

                        (ii)       [ hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [ but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]

                        [ Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, “ commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment]”        

8.                     After going through the above noted definition and admitted facts that not a single penny has been deposited by the complainant during the currency of that scheme. i.e. Sales Circular No. U-53/2013 dated 28.10.2013 which was lateron withdrawn/ suspended  by the OPs vide sale circular No.U-06/2014 dated 16.1.2014. Hence, we are of the considered view that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

9.                     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 room after due compliance.

Announced: 12.04.2016.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

                                   

                                                (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                MEMBER