Haryana

Ambala

CC/184/2016

Rajesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Saini

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

    Complaint Case No. :    184 of 2016

                Date of Institution    :     12.04.2016

                Date of Decision      :      12.08.2016

Rajesh Kumar son of Shri Banarsi Dass R/o village Patterheri, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

……Complainant.

                                                                                             Versus

1.         Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its S.D.O. ‘Op’ Sub Division, Shahzadpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

2.         XEN, ‘Op’ UHBVNL, Naraingarh, District Ambala.

……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:           Sh. Deepak Saini, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. A.S. Nehra, Adv. counsel for Ops.

ORDER.

                        Complainant has filed the present complaint contending therein that a tubewell connection bearing Account No.A3-0383 with a sanctioned load of 5KVA was installed in the name of his mother Savitri Devi. Since she died, her sons namely Pawan Kumar, Ravinder Kumar and Rajesh Kumar (complainant) became owner of the land including the tubewell owned by late Smt. Savitri Devi. It has been further contended that on the intervening night of 27/28.05.2012, some unknown persons stolen the transformer installed at the tubewell of the complainant.  In this regard, FIR was got registered at P.S.Shahzadpur by the then S.D.O.-OP No.1 and after the theft of the transformer electric supply of the tubewell of complainant became disconnected.  Complainant requested  the Op to restore the electricity supply of the tubewell but they made an excuse for non-availability of transformer. Thereafter,  during the paddy season, again request was made to the Ops to restore the electricity supply, upon which, Op assured that  till the installation of the transformer, electricity bill shall not be charged from the complainant. So, due to non-supply of the electricity, complainant had to purchase water from his neighbourer’s tubewell to sow the crops  and to irrigate his fields. It has been further contended that because of the less water, yield of the crop remained poor and complainant has to suffer a huge loss. It has been submitted that OP NO.1 sent a letter no.217 dated 11.07.2014 to the complainant and demanded Rs.6000/- as 10% cost of the transformer from the complainant illegally. Besides it, OP also illegally raised an electricity bill dated 28.03.2016 of Rs.2640/- against the tubewell account of the complainant. It has been further submitted that Op prepared estimate of the transformer of 25 KVA capacity despite of the fact that complainant was using the electric connection of 5KVA to run his tubewell and the previous transformer installed at the tube well of the complainant was of 16KVA capacity and  thus the said act of Op is also illegal.  All the said acts & conduct of Ops tantamounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on their part and thus  having no alternative, complainant preferred the presnt complaint before the Forum seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and tendered written statement admitting  that  transformer installed at the tubewell in question was stolen and  FIR dated 31.05.2012 was lodged by the then OP No.1 at P. S. Shahzadpur in this regard. Thereafter, an estimate of Rs.62940/- was prepared and complainant was informed vide letter no.217 dated 11.07.2014 to deposit an  amount of Rs.6000/- as 10% of the cost of transformer as per instructions of the Op but the complainant failed to deposit the said amount, as such, the transformer could not be installed in the land of the complainant. It is further submitted that  as per latest policy of Ops, 20%  of the estimated cost of transformer is payable by the complainant. Rest of the contents of complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     To prove his version, complainant tendered affidavit of one Sh. Pritam Singh as Annexure CX  & his own affidavit as Annexure C-Y alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OP has tendered affidavit of one Sh. Sunil Kumar, SDO as Annexure RX alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-3 and closed their evidence.

4.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records placed on file by both the parties.  On perusal of FIR No.70 dated 31.05.2012 (Annexure C-2) lodged by Op no.1 with police station Shahzadpur  under Section 379 IPC and Section 136 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003,  it reveals that the transformer in question  installed  in the fields of complainant was stolen by unknown persons as reported by the then SDO OP Sub Division, UHBVNL, Shahzadpur to Police authorities of P.S. Shahzadpur wherefrom it establishes that there is no any fault of the complainant qua theft of the transformer but Ops  have  demanded a sum of Rs.6000/- from complainant by addressing a letter  in the name of her mother Smt. Savitri Devi  bearing memo no.217 dated 11.07.2014 ( Annexure R-2) on the basis of instructions of the Nigam  prevailing at that time 10% of cost of transformer whereas perusal of the instructions of Nigam dated 31.08.2015 placed on file by Ops as Annexure R-1, it is very clear that “ in case of theft of distribution transformer beyond warranty period, the same shall be replaced by getting 20% of the cost (10% of the cost of transformer prevailing prior to 31.08.2015)  deposited from the consumer” but Ops have nowhere pleaded either in the written statement or in the evidence that  the transformer so stolen from the fields of the complainant was  beyond warranty period and as such the demand made by the Ops qua deposit of Rs.6000/- from the complainant is illegal & contrary to the instructions  placed on file by the Ops. Furthermore, it is admitted fact on the record that transformer was stolen from the fields of complainant in May 2012 whereas estimate prepared and forwarded by Op No.1  i.e. SDO to OP No.2 i.e. XEN, UHBVNL in June 2013 i.e. after a period of more than 1 year  and further demand  for deposit of Rs.6000/- was made by OP from complainant  in the July 2014  i.e. after a period of more than 2 years from  theft which all shows that Ops are  negligent and deficient in providing proper services to the complainant whereas Ops are duty bound to restore supply to the tubewell of complainant as early as possible but they  failed to do so which is an example of  unfair trade practice committed by the Ops with the complainant. Besides it, on  the one hand, Ops failed to restore electricity supply to the tubewell of the complainant since May 2012 whereas on the other hand, they are demanding charges qua electricity consumption from the complainant in the month of March 2016 by issuing an electricity  bill ( Annexure C-8) demanding a sum of Rs.2694/- as electricity charges for the period ranging from 07.11.2015 to 07.03.2016 qua consumption of 704 units,  so  the said act of the Ops is not  only deficient rather an example of  unfair trade practice committed by the Ops with the complainant. As such, we have no option except  to discard  the action of the Ops for not restoring supply to the tubewell connection of the complainant, illegally  demanding  a sum of Rs.6000/- as 10% cost of transformer and wrongly issuing demand of Rs.2694/- vide bill dated 12.03.2016 (Annexure C-8).  Accordingly,  we hold that Ops are not only deficient but negligent also in providing services to the complainant.  As such,  the present complaint  is allowed and Ops are directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

(i)To restore supply to the tubewell connection of complainant by installing transformer  without  obtaining any charges from the complainant.

(ii)To withdraw the demand of Rs.6000/- raised vide  letter no.217 dated 11.07.2014 and  also to withdraw the impugned bill dated 12.03.2016 qua demand of Rs.2694/-.

(iii)To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-  as compensation on account of harassment etc.

(iv)Also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account of litigation expenses including Advocate’s fee.  

 

                                    The aforesaid directions must be complied with by the Ops within the stipulated period otherwise the complainant shall be entitled to get the said order enforced under due provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED:12.08.2016                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                                                    (A.K. SARDANA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

                                                                                             Sd/-

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)  

                                                                                                              MEMBER