Haryana

Kurukshetra

200/2017

Narang Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

12 Apr 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.200 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 25.09.2017.

                                                     Date of decision: 12.04.2019.

 

Narang Singh son of Sh. Rulia Ram, resident of Basti Chanarthal, H. No. 62, Ward No.24, Near N.I.T, Municipal Committee Thanesar, P.O. and District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Chief Engineer, UHBVN, Panchkula.
2. Ranvir Singh SDO Division No.2, Kali Kamli Kurukshetra.

….Opposite parties.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

 

Present:     Complainant in person.   

                Sh. Harinderpal Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Narang Singh against the Chief Engineer, UHBVN, Panchkula and another, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is suffering from various diseases. He has availed a tubewell connection No. T-35 for irrigating his three acres of land and is paying the bills regularly. That in the month of May, 2015 bore of his tubwell had failed due to low level of the water because a tubewell connection of his big brother Partap Singh bearing No. T-36 was also in existence at that place and in that connection he was having two shares and Partap Singh was having one share. That Partap Singh had got installed two tubewells at nearby place by way of cheating and also got tubewell connection of their father in his name in connivance with the officers of the electricity department without his signatures and without paying anything to him. It is further averred that complainant shifted a tubewell at a distance of 180 feet from previous location by taking a loan Rs.1,50,000/- and he has also to pay loan of tractor-trolley and house. That transfer on the old bore is kept at the distance of 40 feet from eastern-western dole and at the distance of 11 feet from northern-southern dole and there are two stays at the distance of 18 feet each behind it due to which he is facing a lot of inconvenience and problem in cultivating the land through tractor, sowing of crop through machine and harvesting the crop through combine. That due to transformer, 16 marlas of land remains vacant without sowing of crop and harvesting of crop. On 25.10.2012 he deposited security for extension of load from 10 HP to 12.5 HP and in his letter No.167 dated 1.9.2015 he requested SDO to install transformer at the dole and agreed to pay the labour charges. Thereafter he moved several applications to SDO, CM Window and Deputy Commissioner to get install the transformer at the dole or at the tubewell and to get deposit the expenses as per the circular but the officers of the ops are illegally harassing him. That SDO vide his letter No.2503 dated 6.9.2017 demanded Rs.58606/- and when he demanded estimate of the same, the same is not being supplied to him rather the officers of the electricity department have moved an application against him before SP Office, Kurukshetra and in police station Kurukshtra. It is further averred that he has to seek information under RTI Act, 2005 in January, 2017 regarding shifting of transfer upon which SE, Panchkula informed him that sales circulars are available on the website of the Nigam. That in the cirulcar No. U-34/2016, it is mentioned that Rs.7000/- per span for new work and labour charges for removing old line and for preparing new line have to be paid. That as per this circular, the approximate expenses for shifting transfer on the tubewell will be Rs.9000/- or Rs.10,000/- which the complainant was ready to deposit and is still ready but SDO, XEN and SE are not listening him and are harassing him. That he deposited security for extension of load on 25.10.2012 and the extra bill of Rs.1870/- for big motor of 2½ HP was added in the bill of January, 2017 and he moved an application to SDO to the effect that his transformer and motor is of 10 HP, so till the replacement of big transformer, they should not obtain bill of big motor otherwise he will move an application to the District Consumer Forum and CM Window. That because of this, SDO Mor and JE Jai Bhagwan got provided big transformer in February, 2017. They also assured to install the transformer at the dole after harvesting of wheat crop at his labour charges and also assured to replace big transformer, so he deposited the bill of big motor and still he is depositing the same. But they neither got installed the transformer at the dole nor got replaced the big transformer which is still lying with him. It is further averred that about 30.4.2017, both the above said officials were transferred and since then SDO Ranvir Singh and JE Sonu are illegally harassing him and causing mental tension to him. Neither they are shifting the transformer nor replacing the same and XEN marked the application to the JE. It is further averred that he has apprehension that officers of electricity department are keeping two bill book like office of RTA and same needs investigation from higher authorities. That in the month of March, 2015 he sought information under RTI Act, 2005 about tubewells running on the urban feeder in Kurukshetra District and about their bills upon which the officers of ops gave information that total 28 tubewells are running on urban line and they are taking bill of AP from all of them. That again in January, 2017 he sought information regarding tubewells running on urban feeder and their bills upon which he was informed that 70 tubewells are running on urban line and they are getting bills of AP and from them 5-6 tubewells are running in village Bhiwanikhera and Bishangarh whereas Sarpanch of village is elected there and in Kurukshetra in two years, 42 new tubewell connections have been connected on the city line. It is further averred that tubewell and agricultural land of complainant is situated in the city near new grain market and vegetable market and at a distance of 12 meter from new tubewell, there is city LT line and 11 KV line is passing and pole of the electricity is also at a distance of 12 meter. That complainant was ready to give charges of 12 meter cable and also to give labour charges for replacement of the cable and is still ready and due to this work, the transformer of the electricity board (small or big) will be spare which he will deposit in the electricity office. Hence, this complaint with the prayer to get connected cable of his tubewell connection with city line or to get shifted transformer on the dole or at the tubewell and to refund the bill of the big motor of 2½ HP from 25.10.2012 with monthly interest @2% because electricity board charge monthly interest at the rate of 2% in case of non deposit of the bill and also to take action against the defaulting officers for preparing excess estimate for shifting the transformer without circular and also to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for his harassment for two years.

3.             Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file and maintain the present complaint against the answering ops and that complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the complainant had approached the ops for shifting the tubewell connection on urban line vide application dated 1.9.2015. The estimate was prepared for shifting the line and the complainant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.54,683/- which was prepared by the then area Incharge but the same was not deposited by the complainant at that time and case was filed by the complainant in the Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services Karnal Camp Court at Kurukshetra on 16.9.2015 for settlement of the dispute. Said case was decided in favour of Nigam on 16.3.2016. On the request of the complainant, op no.2 visited the site alongwith Sh. Sonu JE area Incharge on 11.5.2017 at about 15.30 Hrs. During the visit, it was found that the bore of said tubewell was found shifted unauthorisedly from existing site to other place whose distance is about 190 feet and need to be lodged the FIR against the complainant under Section 136 of Electricity Act, 2003 but in this case no FIR has been lodged at that time. A letter No.1189 dated 27.6.2017 was sent to SHO Adarsh Thana KUK for lodging the FIR against the complainant under Section 136 of Electricity Act for unauthorized shifting of tubewell connection and followed by reminder vide letter No.1682 dated 20.7.2017, 2612 dated 13.9.2017 and further followed by SE “OP” Circle UHBVN Kurukshetra vide letter Memo No.27/KG-84 dated 16.9.2017 to SP Kurukshetra but the same was not lodged. It is further submitted that on the other hand, deposit estimate of Rs.58,606/- for shifting of tubewell connection was sanctioned vide estimate No.21414/AKC-1156/2017-18 in compliance of CM Window Grievance No. CMOFF/N/2017/5167 dated 13.1.2017 in view of S/C No.U-33/2001 dated 15.3.2001, SC U-01/2005 and accordingly a letter memo No.2503 dated 6.9.2017 was sent to the complainant for depositing the estimated cost for regularization of unauthorized shifting of tubewell connection but the same was not deposited by the complainant. After that the complainant submitted his request to get the work executed under Self Execution Scheme and accordingly Rs.880/- was deposited by the complainant vide BA-16 No.36/114661 dated 24.10.2017 on account of inspection charges i.e. 1.5% of sanction estimate but the work could not be executed by the complainant till date, whereas the same will be completed by the complainant himself as the work is lying pending on the part of complainant. It is further submitted that complainant neither deposited the entire amount of sanctioned estimate nor executed the work under Self Execution Scheme through authorized contractor. Now he wanted to deposit the amount of Rs.7000/- per span for new work in view of S/C No.U-34/2016 dated 29.8.2016 whereas these charges are admissible for shifting of tubewell only. If complainant wants to erect the LT line only then the work will be completed as per S/C No.U-34/2016 dated 29.8.2016 otherwise complainant would bear the entire costs of shifting of T/F as per S/C No.33/2001 dated 15.3.2001. It is further submitted that jurisdiction of this Forum is barred, because in case of any grievance the complainant has to approached to the answering ops or appellate authority of answering ops, but the complainant has not done so. Moreover, under the Electricity Act, the court of learned District & Sessions Judge has the powers to decide the matter of controversy regarding electricity and that complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct. On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated. It is also submitted that complainant has demanded the copy of the circular under RTI Act and he was directed to deposit the requisite fees under RTI Act for the supply of the copy of sale circular, but he has not deposited the requisite fee with the SPIO. The complainant himself privately shifted the transformer on urban line without any right and an application in this regard was moved by the ops against the complainant for doing the said illegal work. All other contents of the complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             The complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexures C1 to C21. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops tendered documents Annexures R1 to R7.

5.             We have heard complainant and learned counsel for the ops and have perused the case file carefully.

6.             During the course of arguments, it is admitted by both the parties that connection has been shifted at the tubewell which was shifted by the complainant at new place at the expenses of the complainant.

7.             Now, the grievance of the complainant is that his connection may be connected to urban feeder.  In this regard, we would like to mention that the complainant filed an application under Section 22 C of Public Utility Services and Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Kurukshetra against the respondents seeking direction to the respondents/ ops to shift his tubewell on the city feeder; to erect new line connecting his tubewell at the new site. The Hon’ble Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Kurukshetra ( vide order dated 16.3.2016 R6) observed that perusal of the documents makes it very clear that the entire cost of shifting of tubewell was to be borne by the applicant. The dismantlement of old line and erection of new line and the cost of additional material, if required at new location, was to be borne by the applicant. Thus, in view of these instructions and circulars, new electricity line cannot be erected by the department at the new place where the petitioner has shifted its tubewell unless he complies with the conditions mentioned therein. Thus, the Hon’ble Permanent Lok Adalat did not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner and dismissed the said application. Then the complainant filed a complaint before Hon’ble Commissioner, Haryana Right to Service Commission, Chandigarh on the same cause of action. Prior to the above both petitions, the complainant also filed a similar complaint before this Forum which was dismissed on 15.10.2010 ( vide order mark A) holding that ops are proper person to maintain the proper electricity supply to urban as well as rural area and this is a technical matter which is within the purview of ops and ops do the work only for betterment of the consumers and the present act of the ops is also for the betterment of the urban as well as rural consumers and for smooth/ better power supply, better voltage, better power factor and a dedicated transformer for his exclusive use etc and that the complainant can challenge the sale circular and manuals before the Civil Court. Now again the complainant has filed the present complaint on same cause of action and without completing the formalities as required by the ops under the relevant sales circulars and the present complaint seems to be not maintainable as the complainant has already agitated the similar matter before the different authorities but has failed to complete the requisite formalities of the ops. Moreover, his request for shifting connection on his new tubewell has been accepted by the ops. But regarding shifting of connection to urban feeder is concerned, as mentioned above this Forum has already observed that it is the ops who have to arrange the supply from urban or rural feeder and as such present complaint in this regard is not maintainable.

7.             In view of the above, the present complaint is not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.  

Announced in open court:

Dt.:12.4.2019. 

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.