STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :      81 of 2015

Date of Institution:     21.01.2015

Date of Decision :     10.02.2015

Ishwar s/o Sh. Radha, Resident of Village Balu, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                       Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      UHBVN Limited through its Secretary, Bijli Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2.      XEN ‘OP’ Division UHBVN Limited, Kaithal.

3.      S.D.O. ‘OP’ Sub Division, UHBVN Ltd., Kalayat, District Kaithal.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Kamal Mor, Advocate for appellant.

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL):

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated October 20^th, 2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Kaithal.

2.      Ishwar-complainant (appellant herein) applied for electric connection of his tubewell and deposited Rs.1500/- vide receipt No.017032 dated March 6^th, 2009 with Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘UHBVNL’)-opposite parties. His name was at Sr.No.68 in the seniority list. The UHBVNL vide Circular No.U-12/2012 and U-26/2012, launched a Self Execution Scheme for getting tubewell connection. The appellant wanted to get connection under the said scheme and deposited Rs.51,430/- with the UHBVNL in 2013 but still the connection was not released. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the UHBVNL, the appellant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

3.      During the pendency of the complaint, the UHBVNL released connection to the appellant in the year 2014. 

4.      Considering it to be the deficiency in service on the part of the UHBVNL, District Forum allowed complaint and issued direction to the UHBVNL to pay Rs.2,000/- as lump sum compensation to the appellant. 

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that amount of compensation awarded is on lower side.

6.      Having taken into consideration facts of the case and the evidence led by the appellant, this Commission is of the view that the amount awarded to the appellant-complainant is just, reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement.

7.      Appeal is dismissed.

CL