Haryana

StateCommission

A/1064/2015

OMPHAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

K.K.CHAHAL

25 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                    

                                                First Appeal No.           1064 of 2015

                                                Date of Institution:       11.12.2015

                                                Date of Decision:         25.02.2016

 

Omphal son of Shri Surat Singh, resident of Dher Pana, Meham, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak, Haryana.

                             Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its SDO, Sub Division, Meham, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak, Haryana.

 

2.      SDO, Sub Division, Meham, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak, Haryana.

                                       Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                       

 

Present:              None for the appellant.

                             Mr. Krishan Chand, SDO on behalf of the respondents.

                            

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

Omphal-complainant has challenged the correctness and legality of the order dated October 16^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by him was disposed of with the direction to Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL), Meham to adjust the bill dated June 13^th, 2010 to October 06^th, 2010 in the future bills: to issue the amended bill and the meter be also replaced within one month.

2.      Complainant had electric tubewell connection in his field.  The meter was not working properly.  On May 13^th/14^th, 2010 copper coil and other part of transformer were stolen.  First Information Report No.176 dated May 28^th, 2010 under Section 379 of IPC was registered in Police Station Meham.  The complainant requested UHBVNL to install transformer at the earliest so that crop may not be damaged. It was also stated by him that wrong bill has been issued to him by the UHBVNL for the period when there was no electricity.  He has claimed Rs.2,75,000/- on account of loss occurred to his crop.

3.      Counsel for the complainant made a statement before the District Forum that energy bill charged from the complainant was for the period June 13^th to October 06^th, 2010 when there was no electricity, be adjusted in the future bill and the meter be replaced.  On the request of complainant, Sh. K.S. Dalal, Sub Divisional Officer, UHBVNL made a statement that bill would be adjusted and meter would be replaced. 

4.      Taking into consideration the statements made by the parties, UHBVNL was directed to adjust the bill with effect from June 13^th to October 06^th, 2010 in future bill and meter be replaced.

5.      Sh. Krishan Chand, SDO has stated at bar that no bill was charged from the complainant for the period June 13^th to October 06^th, 2010 and the meter has been replaced.  So far as installation of transformer was concerned, the same could not be installed immediately because there was no passage as finds mentioned in the letter dated September 03^rd, 2010 (Annexure A) written by the complainant.  Otherwise too, no evidence had been led by the complainant that he suffered loss of Rs.2,75,000/- to his crop on account of non installation of transformer.  The order was passed by the District Forum on the statement of counsel for the complainant whereby he asked for two reliefs, which the UHBVNL agreed to be complied with.    

6.      For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is dismissed.

 

  

Announced 25.02.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK