Haryana

StateCommission

A/245/2016

GIAN CHAND SEHGAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

G.C.SHAHPURI

26 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                      First Appeal No.245 of 2016        

                                       Date of Institution:21.03.2016

                                      Date of Decision:26.05.2017

 

Gian Chand Sehgal son of Sh.Joti Ram, R/o VPO Khizrabad, Tehsil Chhachhrauli at present resident of House No.737, Sham Sunder Puri, Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar.

                                                                                …Appellant

                                     

Versus

 

1.      UHBVN, Sub Division, Chhachhrauli, through SDO “OP” Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar.

2.        SDO “OP” UHBVN, Sub Division Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar.

3.        Executive Engineer, UHBVN, Jagadhri.

 

               …Respondents

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

 

Present:     Mr.G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr. B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents.

 

                                      

O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          It was alleged by complainant that he obtained electricity connection for agricultural purpose under self execution scheme vide account No.TA 0757. Under that policy he purchased his own transformer and deposited all necessary expenses like security etc. vide receipt dated 11.05.2011. As per sale instructions issued in the year, 2010 in case of  theft of transformer under self execution scheme that was to be replaced by department. His transformer was stolen during the intervening night of 26/27.03.2012 and he informed opposite parties (in short ‘O.Ps.’)  vide letter dated 29.03.2012. FIR No.47 dated 07.04.2012 was also registered to this effect. When O.Ps. refused to install new transformer he got installed new one at his own expenses of Rs.28,000/-. As their refusal to install transformer was illegal, so they be directed to pay Rs.28,000/- alongwith interest from the date of purchase of transformer i.e. 29.03.2012.

2.      OPs filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that as per circular issued in the year, 2010 transformer could be given to the farmers by department in paddy season and not otherwise. In the present case transformer of complainant was stolen during the intervening night of 26/27.03.2012 and there was no paddy season. They were not liable to make any payment and the complaint be dismissed.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamunanagar (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 16.12.2016.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefreom complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      It is argued by learned counsel for complainant that as per circular dated 16.07.2012, copy of which is Ex.C-8, in case of theft of transformer, department is to replace the same. New instructions were issued on 22.04.2013, copy of which is Ex.C-9, vide which if any, transformer was stolen before June, 2012 that will be replaced by department after depositing 10% of cost of transformer by farmer. His transformer was also stolen before the month of June, 2012, so he is entitled for refund.

7.      This argument is devoid of any force. When complainant applied for connection sale circular dated 06.07.2010, copy of which is Ex.C-3, was applicable. As per that circular, transformer was to be replaced by department during paddy season only to give relief to farmer. Instructions Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 were issued much after the theft of transformer of complainant. When these instructions were issued, by that time complainant had already installed new transformer. It is nowhere mentioned in these instructions that even if, transformer has been installed, the amount is to be paid to the farmer. Learned District Forum has taken into consideration all the aspects from each and every angle. Findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. So, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

May 26^th, 2017          Urvashi Agnihotri                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                 Member                                  Judicial Member                                           Addl. Bench                         Addl.Bench              

 

R.K