Haryana

StateCommission

A/1096/2015

RAJENDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

PARMOD PARMAR

03 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No  :      1096 of 2015

Date of Institution:        21.12.2015

Date of Decision :        03.06.2016

 

 

Rajender Singh s/o Sh. Raghu Nath, Resident of Village Babra, Tehsil and District Jhajjar.

                             Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

Sub Divisional Officer (OP), Sub Urban, Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Jhajjar, District Jhajjar.

                             Respondent-Opposite Party

 

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

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                

 

Present:               None for appellant.

Ms. Alka Joshi, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Case called several times since morning but none has appeared on behalf of the appellant. On the last two consecutive hearings, that is, May 2^nd and March 9^th, 2016, the position was the same. This Commission thinks it appropriate to decide the appeal after hearing learned counsel for the respondent and going through the case file.

2.      The unsuccessful complainant is in appeal against the order dated November 13^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by him was dismissed.

3.      Rajender Singh-complainant/respondent, applied for electric connection of his tubewell to Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL)-Opposite Party/respondent vide application dated 16^th April, 2008 (Exhibit R-14). His name was in the seniority list for releasing connection. The UHVBNL issued a Demand Notice No.3282 dated September 15^th, 2009 (Exhibit R-12) to the complainant to deposit Rs.20,000/-. He deposited the amount. After completion of the necessary formalities, the UHBVNL prepared the estimate with respect to the expenses for releasing the connection and as per estimate, the complainant deposited Rs.17,350/- (Rs.16,350+1000). Service Connection Order Exhibit R-9 was issued.  In the meanwhile, the UHBVNL issued Sales Circular No.U-11/2011 dated May 19^th, 2011 (Annexure-A) whereby the consumers desirous of seeking tubewell connections were given options given below:-

“a)     The old system of four or more connections per transformer, where the consumer pays Rs.20,000/- and Rs.7,000/- per span;

b)      Three connections per transformer where the consumer pays Rs 30,000/- and Rs 7,000/- per span and

c)      Single connection per transformer where the consumer meets the full cost of the transformer, in addition to the cost of spans.”

 

4.      The complainant opted option (C) vide Exhibit R-7. As per the said Sales Circular, revised estimate (Exhibit R-6) was prepared vide which the complainant was required to pay Rs.83,750/-. Because the complainant had already paid Rs.37,350/- (Rs.20000+17350), so memo No.2379 dated 18^th June, 2013 (Exhibit R-5) was issued whereby he was asked to pay the balance amount Rs.46,400/- (83750 – 37350).

5.      In view of the above, it is established that the complainant was required to deposit the balance amount of Rs.46,400/-, particularly when he himself had opted to get tubewell connection under option (C) of Sales Circular No.U-11/2011 (Annexure-A). Therefore, the demand of Rs.46,400/- from the complainant by the UHBVNL cannot be termed as deficiency in service.  Thus, no case for interference is made out.  Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

 

 

Announced: 03.06.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

Nawab Singh President

CL