Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/894/2012

Sher Singh S/o Prabhu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gulab Singh

26 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 894 of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 21.8.2012

                                                                                    Date of decision: 26.10.2015

Sher Singh aged 60 years son of Shri Prabhu Ram, resident of village Jagadhauli, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                              …Complainant.

 

                                    Versus

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Shakti Bhawan Panchkula, through its Chairman or Member Secretary. 
2. The Exectuive Engineer, U.H.B.V.N. Naraingarh, District Ambala. 
3. The S.D.O., Op. U.H.B.V.N. Sadhaura, Tehsil Bilaspur District Yamuna Nagar. 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                           ..Opposite parties.  

                                         

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Gulab Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant. 

              Sh. Karnail Singh, Advocate, for OPs.   

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sher Singh  has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (herein after referred as OPs) be directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- compensation on account of loss of crop and Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as cost of litigation. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint as alleged by the complainant are that the complainant is having a tubewell connection bearing No. T-8J/0932 and paying all the actual consumption charges to the OPs regularly and never defaulted in the payment thereof. The transformer, which was installed at the spot by the OPs was stolen by some unknown person in the night between 11.4.2011 to 12.4.2011 and matter was immediately reported to the OPs and OPs sent memo No. 458 dated 19.4.2011, in this respect to the police, police station Chhappar and an FIR No. 69 dated 19.4.2011 stands registered under section 379 IPC and section 136 of Indian Electricity Act 2003. When the transformer was not installed by the OPs at the spot for a sufficient long time after its theft, then the complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing No.187 of 2012 titled as Sher Singh vs. UHBVNL under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which was accepted and decided vide order dated 10.5.2012 and the OPs were directed to install new transformer at spot within one month from 10.5.2012 but of no use and the OPs did not comply with the order dated 10.5.2012, for which an application under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act was moved by the complainant. Inspite of order dated 10.5.2012, the OPs have not installed the transformer at the spot as such the complainant was deprived for using of his tubewell and to irrigate his crop for want of installation of new transformer at spot since 12.4.2011 onward till today. Hence, this complaint.  

 3.                    Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi, no cause of action, estopped by his own act and conduct, no deficiency in service, concealment of true and material facts and on merit it has been mentioned that true facts are that complainant had filed a consumer complaint No. 187 of 2012 titled as Sher Singh Vs. UHBVNL and others which was decided on 10.5.2012 and thereafter complainant had filed an execution petition under section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the OPs which is still pending before this Hon’ble Forum. Hence the present complaint is not maintainable. Further it has been mentioned that OPs very much bound to comply with the order of this Forum but the matter is already pending before this Forum by way of Execution then what is the use of present complaint. Lastly prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and requested for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     The case was fixed for evidence of complainant subject to cost of Rs. 200/- but neither the evidence filed by complainant nor deposited the cost of Rs. 200/- in the Consumer Legal Aid, so, the evidence of the complainant was ordered to be closed by court order dated 1012.2014.

5.                     On the other hand, OPs also neither filed any evidence nor deposited the cost of Rs. 500/- as cost in the Consumer Legal Aid and the evidence of the OPs were also ordered to be closed by court order dated 13.7.2015.

6.                     However, at the time of filing of complaint complainant filed copy of Farad Jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 and photo copy of judgment/ order dated 10.5.2012 and copy of bill for the month of 14.5.2012 with his complaint.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     It is not disputed that complainant filed consumer complaint No. 187 of 2012 titled as Sher Singh vs. UHBVNL and others which was decided by this Forum vide order dated 10.5.2012 and OPs were directed to install the new transformer at spot within one month from the date of order i.e. 10.5.2012. it is also not disputed that due to non compliance of the abovesaid order/judgment dated 10.5.2012 passed by this Forum, complainant was filed execution petition under section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is still pending as per version of the OPs mentioned in para No.6 of the preliminary objections. However, complainant has concealed this fact from this Forum that his execution is still pending before this forum in his complaint. He has only mentioned that application under section 25 & 27 of Consumer Protection Act has been moved by the complainant.

9.                     However, Assistant of this Forum was directed to trace out the execution titled as Sher Singh vs. UHBVNL filed against judgment/order dated 10.5.2012. Assistant produced the file of that execution after getting from the record room, this execution bears No. 327 dated 21.8.2012. In this execution, SDO Vishal Saini appeared on behalf of JDs made a statement on 11.10.2012 that transformer of the complainant has been installed and connection is working at site. In view of this statement, the said execution was disposed off vide order dated 11.10.2012.

10                    This fact has not been disclosed by the complainant even complainant has not filed any objection or appeal/revision against the disposal off that execution. Even the present complaint was filed on 21.8.2012 by the complainant and on the same day that execution bearing No. 327 dated 21.8.2012 was filed by the complainant thereby complainant was misusing the process of law.

11.                   The counsel for the complainant failed to show any law or convince this Forum that when the execution is pending for compliance of previous judgment/order dated 10.5.2012 then how the present complaint is maintainable. Further in the present complaint complainant totally failed to produce any documentary evidence that he has suffered any loss due to non installation of the transformer at spot. The complainant has nowhere mentioned in his complaint that he is not using the electricity supply and his field remained un-irrigated. Further the complainant has not filed his own affidavit or affidavit of neighbourer that his land remained un-irrigated due to non installation of transformer  and the complainant has suffered financial loss. Moreover, from the perusal of the order dated 11.10.2012 passed in the execution bearing No. 327 dated 21.8.2012 it is clear that the transformer of the complainant had already been installed. In the absence of any documentary evidence and after going through the above noted circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint of complainant is without any merit and the same is hereby ordered to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. The file of previous execution bearing No. 327 dated 21.8.2012 and the present complaint be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 26.10.2015.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                                MEMBER