Haryana

Kaithal

369/20

Sant Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Anand Parkash

10 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.369/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 23.10.2020.

                                                     Date of decision: 10.05.2023.

Sant Ram @ Santu (age 60 years) S/o Sh. Mohan Ram r/o Village Pabla, P.O.Kaul, Tehsil Dhand, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. through S.D.O. Dhand, District Kaithal.
2. Ramesh J.E. U.H.B.V.N. Ltd., Dhand, District Kaithal.
3. Executive Engineer, U.H.B.V.N. Ltd., Kaithal.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Anand Parkash Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Karan Gaur, Advocate for the respondents.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Sant Ram-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had took the land measuring 7 Acre 7 Marlas on lease for cultivation from the Gram Panchayat, Pabla in open auction on 22.05.2019 and paid Rs.3,95,000/-.  In the land which was taken on lease by the complainant, the Gram Panchayat Pabla had obtained two electricity connections No.X-51 AP 8-853-M and X-51 AP 8-791-X from the OPs for tubewell.  The Gram Panchayat Pabla deposited the electricity bills regularly within time.  The case of complainant is that the OPs disconnected the electricity connections of complainant on 20.03.2020 without any reason.  The complainant moved an application with the OP No.1 for compensation regarding loss of wheat crop due to illegal act of OPs.  The OP No.1 intentionally marked the said application to the OP No.2 and the OP No.2 made his report on the said application regarding non-deposit of bills of energy regarding the aforesaid electricity connections.  The said report of OP No.2 is stated to be wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission.  The true facts are that the tubewell electricity connections in question are installed/released in the name of Gram Panchayat, Pabla.  It is further submitted that the bills on account of consumption of electricity energy through connection in dispute were not deposited by official consumer since April, 2018 to January, 2020.  As such on 20.03.2020 the connections in dispute were temporarily disconnected on account of arrears of electricity charges.  However, thereafter on 17.04.2020 complainant approached the office of Op No.1 and stated that due to disconnection of connections in dispute, his crops have been damaged for want of water and he claimed for damages from Nigam.  Said application filed by complainant was duly processed and it was found that though amount of arrears of electricity charges due against connections in dispute have been deposited into bank account of Nigam but official consumer did not intimate/produce receipt of deposit into bank with office of answering Op No.1.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the respondents tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had took the land measuring 7 Acre 7 Marlas on lease for cultivation from the Gram Panchayat, Pabla in open auction on 22.05.2019 and paid Rs.3,95,000/- as per Annexure-C1.  It is further argued that in the land which was taken on lease by the complainant, the Gram Panchayat Pabla had obtained two electricity connections No.X-51 AP 8-853-M and X-51 AP 8-791-X from the OPs for tubewell.  It is further argued that the OPs disconnected the electricity connections of complainant on 20.03.2020 without any reason and re-connected the said electricity connections on 20.05.2020.  The complainant moved an application with the OP No.1 for compensation regarding loss of wheat crop due to illegal act of OPs.  The OP No.1 intentionally marked the said application to the OP No.2 and the OP No.2 made his report on the said application regarding non-deposit of bills of energy regarding the aforesaid electricity connections.  The said report of OP No.2 is stated to be wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents.

7.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the tubewell electricity connections in question were installed/released in the name of Gram Panchayat, Pabla.  It is further argued that the bills on account of consumption of electricity energy through connection in dispute were not deposited by official consumer since April, 2018 to January, 2020.  As such on 20.03.2020 the connections in dispute were temporarily disconnected on account of arrears of electricity charges.  However, thereafter on 17.04.2020 complainant approached the office of Op No.1 and stated that due to disconnection of connections in dispute, his crops have been damaged for want of water and he claimed for damages from Nigam.  Said application filed by complainant was duly processed and it was found that though amount of arrears of electricity charges due against connections in dispute have been deposited into bank account of Nigam but official consumer did not intimate/produce receipt of deposit into bank with office of answering Op No.1.

8.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the application dt. 20.05.2020 as per Annexure-C3 from which it is clear that the complainant moved an application to the S.D.O., UHBVN, Dhand-OP No.1 for compensation regarding loss of wheat crop.  On the said application, report of J.E. was sought and he has reported that due to non-deposit of bills, the tubewell electricity connections in question were disconnected and both the electricity connections were re-connected on 20.05.2020.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has vehemently contented that the complainant had deposited the bills in question with the OPs and also drawn our attention towards the receipts Annexure-C4 and Annexure-C5.     

9.             From perusal of record, it is clear that the complainant has not mentioned that how much damage was occurred to the complainant, there is no survey report on the file, the complainant has also not placed on file any girdawari or jamabandi on the file.  In these circumstances, it has become suspicious that how much damage was occurred by the complainant.  To prove the same elaborate and detailed evidence is required. A complicated issue is involved in the matter which cannot be decided in summary procedure before this Commission.  So, the Civil Court is the best platform for deciding the matter in controversy where elaborate and detailed evidence can be produced.  In this context, we are fortified with the observations made in the case titled as Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007(4) CPJ page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission that Complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court.  In case titled as M/s. The Bills through its Proprietor Vs. PNB  reported in 1998(1) CPC page 150, decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, wherein it has been mentioned that Complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.

10.            Thus, in view of above discussion, we dispose of the complaint accordingly and complainant is at liberty to approach the court/civil court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, the complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted.  No order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:10.05.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.