Haryana

Ambala

CC/242/2012

SUNIL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

NAVNEET SINGH

30 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                                                                   Complaint Case No. :    242 of 2012

      Date of Institution    :     28.08.2012

                                                      Date of Decision      :     30.09.2016

 

1.         Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Pritam Singh S/o Sh.Heera Singh,

2.         Raj Pal son of Sh. Pritam Singh S/o Sh. Heera Singh ,

3.         Vikram Singh S/o Sh. Pritam Singh S/o Sh. Heera Singh

            All residents of village Dhanora, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

                                             ……Complainants.

                                                                            Versus

1.         S.D.O. Operation Division, UHBVNL, Sadhoura, District Yamunanagar.

2.         M.D., UHBVNL, Vidyug Sadan, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

3.         Executive Engineer, Operation Division, UHBVNL, Ambala Cantt.

4.         Executive Engineer, Operation Division, UHBVNL, Yamunanagar.

……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:        SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          None for complainant.

                        Sh. R.S.Saini, Adv.counsel for Ops alongwith

                        Sh. Ram Kumar, SDO.

ORDER.

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that   father of complainants namely Sh. Pritam Singh applied for a tubewell electricity connection in his name  for the land situated at village Dhanora under single transformer and single connection scheme with Op No.1 on 28.12.2006 and paid  requisite fees. As per scheme, OP shall install a separate transformer for each single connection. Father of complainant expired on 30.04.2011 and thus agriculture land  inherited by complainants and the fact of death of Pritam Singh was intimated to the OP No.1 and requested them to install the electricity connection as soon as possible. It has been contended that in April 2012, Ops told that  they shall not install the connection under single transformer and single connection scheme whereas they can only install the connection under L.T. connection scheme whereby electricity shall be supplied to various tubewell connections and if complainants want to get a separate transformer, they have to pay additional charge for installation of transformer. A legal notice got served upon the  Ops but of no avail. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and file written statement raising preliminary objections qua locus standi & complaint is bad for joining of necessary parties.  On merits, it has been submitted that complainants not submitted any death certificate of his father to the Ops nor they  made any application for transferring the connection papers in their names. So the complainants first get the connection transferred in their names or in the name of any one of them as provided by rules of the Ops and also submit no objection  certificate from other legal heirs  of Pritam Singh.  Thus, the complainants  have not got necessary formalities  for the connection to be released in their names. As such, the Ops are not at any fault and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexures C1 to C-8 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Ops  tendered affidavit of Sh. Vishal Saini, SDO as Anenxure RX alongwith documents as Annexure R-1  to R-6 and closed evidence on behalf of OP-Nigam.  

4.                     Today neither complainant nor his counsel is present, however, we have heard learned counsel for the opposite parties and gone through the record very carefully and deciding the case on merits. During the course of arguments, Sh. Ram Kumar, SDO appeared on behalf of Ops tendered a statement that father of complainant Sh. Pritam Singh had applied for a tubewell connection and the same had been released in terms of sales circulars U-10/2011 and U-11/2011 (Annexure A & B) of the Nigam.  Service Connection Order (Annexure C) was issued in the name of deceased Pritam Singh but the connection of Pritam Singh was at 1200 feet, so as per sales circular U-11/2011, the connection was given  to him as  per LT line and new transformer cannot be installed as load of the transformer was enhanced from 25KV to 63 KV.  The SDO has also placed on record copy of rough sketch plan as Annexure D, according to which, the connection given to Pritam Singh was about 70 Mtrs, so in view of the aforesaid sales circular,  no grievance of the complainant remains pending and the complaint has become infructuous.

 5.                    In view of the above statement, Ops had already released tubewell connection in the name of father of complainant as per sales Circular No.U-11/2011 & U-16/2011.  Sales circular U-11/2011 says that:-

(a)       The old system of four or more connections per transformer, where the consumer pays Rs.20,000/- and Rs.7,000/- per span’.

(b)       Three connections per transformer where the consumer pays Rs.30,000/- and Rs.7000/- per span and

(c)       Single connection per transformer where the consumer meets the full cost of the transformer, in addition to the cost of spans.

                        In order to implement the above policy  the following guidelines are being issued:-

1. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
3. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4. The length  of LT line required for release of connection shall be restricted to 1200 ft for option(a) and (b) and each span of HT/LT should not be more that 70 Mtrs.

 

                        It is not disputed that complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.375/- on 28.12.2006, Rs.1000/- on 28.12.006, Rs.20,000/- on 07.02.2008 & Rs.7000/- on 22.12.2008.  So, as per fee deposited by complainant as well as the fact that connection of Pritam Singh  was restricted to 1200 ft., his connection falls under Clause (a) read with point 4 of sales circular U-11/2011.  Accordingly, the connection to Pritam Singh has already released as per the referred sales circulars. Accordingly, the grievance of complainant has been redressed by Ops. So, the complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED:30.09.2016                                                              Sd/-          

                                                                                                   (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                    (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                            MEMBER