BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.41/15.

Date of instt.: 09.03.2015. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 01.12.2015.  

Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Pipti R/o Village Teontha, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Secretary at Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its S.D.O., Const. S/Division, UHBVN, Pundri, Distt. Kaithal (Sub Division No.II).

3. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Executive Engineer, UHBVN, Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Shamsher Singh, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. R.S.Dhull, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that in the year 2007 the complainant applied for an agricultural electricity connection for his field in Sub Division Pundri and deposited the amount of Rs.22,750/- on 13.12.2007 as security etc. for the said connection.  It is alleged that after about two months, the Ops asked the complainant to deposit Rs.21,000/- as costs of three spans by saying that the department has estimated that three spans are required to be installed for agriculture connection of complainant and upon the instructions of Ops, the complainant deposited the same with the Ops on 27.02.2008.  It is further alleged that when the connection of complainant was installed/issued by the Ops, only one span was installed at the spot.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops to adjust his excessive amount of Rs.14,000/- against the domestic bill of electricity but the Ops did not do so.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true and material facts are that at the time of preparing the estimate, three spans were found required for release the connection in favour of complainant.  So, an amount of Rs.21,000/- @ Rs.7,000/- per span were got deposited from the complainant.  In between, another connection was released near the proposed site of complainant, so, distance of proposed site for releasing the connection in favour of complainant reduced from three to one span.  So, the complainant was requested to submit the B.A.16 in original i.e. receipt of Rs.21,000/- with the Ops so that the amount of Rs.14,000 could be refunded to the complainant, but the complainant did not submit the above-said B.A.16 in original with the Ops, so, without submitting the B.A.16 in original, affidavit and completing all the requisite formalities of UHBVN, the amount of rs.14,000/- cannot be refunded in favour of complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed evidence on 07.09.2015.  On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 and closed evidence on 01.10.2015.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

5.     Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint.  He argued that in the year 2007 the complainant applied for an agricultural electricity connection for his field in Sub Division Pundri and deposited the amount of Rs.22,750/- on 13.12.2007 as security etc. for the said connection.  He further argued that after about two months, the Ops asked the complainant to deposit Rs.21,000/- as costs of three spans by saying that the department has estimated that three spans are required to be installed for agriculture connection of complainant and upon the instructions of Ops, the complainant deposited the same with the Ops on 27.02.2008.  He further argued that when the connection of complainant was installed/issued by the Ops, only one span was installed at the spot.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops controverted all the allegations contained in the complaint.  He argued that at the time of preparing the estimate, three spans were found required for release the connection in favour of complainant.  So, an amount of Rs.21,000/- @ Rs.7,000/- per span were got deposited from the complainant.  In between, another connection was released near the proposed site of complainant, so, distance of proposed site for releasing the connection in favour of complainant reduced from three to one span.  So, the complainant was requested to submit the B.A.16 in original i.e. receipt of Rs.21,000/- with the Ops so that the amount of Rs.14,000 could be refunded to the complainant, but the complainant did not submit the above-said B.A.16 in original with the Ops, so, without submitting the B.A.16 in original, affidavit and completing all the requisite formalities of UHBVN, the amount of rs.14,000/- cannot be refunded in favour of complainant.

6.     Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence available on the file and on appraisal of pleadings of both the parties, we found that the complainant applied for an agricultural electricity connection for his field and deposited the amount of Rs.22,750/- on 13.12.2007 as security etc.  After two months, the Ops asked the complainant to deposit Rs.21,000/- as costs of three spans and the complainant deposited the same with the Ops on 27.02.2008 but when the connection of complainant was installed, only one span was installed at the spot.  The complainant requested the Ops several times to refund Rs.14,000/- but the Ops did not do so.  The complainant has also tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of receipts Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, copy of letter dt. 30.09.2011 written to S.D.O., UHBVN, Pundri regarding adjustment of excessive amount in the domestic connection Ex.C4, copy of reminder dt. 01.08.2014, Ex.C5 and copy of reminder Ex.C6.  The complainant also issued legal notice to the Ops, copy of which Ex.C7 is placed on the file but the Ops did not redress the grievances of the complainant.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to refund Rs.14,000/- to the complainant, subject to submission of B.A.16 and other documents as required by the Ops and further to pay Rs.1100/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges.  Let the order be complied within 30 days after submission of B.A.16 and other documents by the complainant with the Ops, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of order till its payment.  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.

Dt.01.12.2015.   

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.