Haryana

Jind

CC/182/2013

Ranjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. D.S. Lohan

11 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 182 of 2013
                            Date of institution:-16.8.2013
                            Date of decision:- 11.7.2016
Ranjit Singh son of Sh. Gulzari resident of village Dhakal, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind..

                                       ...Complainant.
Versus
Utter Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Urban Sub Division, Narwana through its Sub Divisional Engineer.
                                 …Opposite party.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.    
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
            
Present:-    Sh. D.S. Lochab Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. V.K. Bhardwaj Adv. for opposite party. 
Order:-
        In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that complainant had applied for tube-well connection  of electricity of his fields vide file No.9142 and 9143 in the year 2005 in the office of  opposite party and he had deposited all the requisite payments at that time. It is further alleged that in the year 2010 the opposite party demanded money for installation of poles and other equipments which has been deposited vide receipts No.317 and 318 dated 16.2.2010 worth Rs.14,000/- each and again the opposite party revised the estimate and has directed to him to deposit Rs.7,000/- more which has also been deposited on 8.9.2011. The opposite party has started the work of 
            Ranjit Singh Vs. UHBVN 
                    …2…
installation of poles on both the sides and some poles were installed and issue a transformer for the pole along with cable/wire of aluminum and also advised to purchase an Insulator, GSL wire and support wire, the same has been purchased and deposited in the office of opposite party. The opposite party had installed poles in the month of November, 2011 at the site but no connection was issued till date. The complainant requested several times to the opposite party, Executive Engineer, UHBVN, Narwana, M.D. UHBVNL, Haryana and Deputy Commissioner, Jind vide applications dated 15.5.2012 ,29.5.2013, 31.5.2013 and 5.6.2013 but no action was taken.  The AFM Om Parkash along with other staff and contractor visited the site of the tube-well and they tried to install the pole at the LT line in the field of Rajbir son of Kapoor Singh etc. then they restrained the staff of opposite party to install the pole in their field and stopped the work of installation of pole as well as connection.  So the above said staff of the Nigam came back from the site without installation of poles and without releasing the connection to the complainant. The opposite party has  not released any connection in his name in case file No.9142 at the site. Due to not releasing the tube-well connection, the complainant suffered huge loss for his crops. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite party be directed  to release the tube-well connection immediately and also to withdraw the illegal electric consumption bill. It is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-  as  

            Ranjit Singh Vs. UHBVN 
                    …3…
compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  
2.      Pursuant to notice, the opposite party has appeared and filed the written reply agitating  therein that the complainant has got no   cause of action and locus-standi  to file the present complaint and the complainant has not come with clean hands before this Forum and has suppressed the true and material facts. On merits, it is contended that the staff of opposite party visited the field of complainant for installation of tube-well connection on 24.6.2013 but on that date Rajbir, Subhash, Dharam Raj and Ramesh sons of Kapuria did not allow the staff of the opposite party to erect the electricity line for providing the electricity connection to the tube-well of complainant. It was told to the field staff/employee of the Nigam that Rajbir and Ramesh have filed a Civil Suit for permanent injunction against opposite party and complainant in the court of civil Judge (Jr. Division) Narwana, which is still pending in the court and the same has not been decided by the court as yet. The opposite party has fully complied with the rules of Nigam and also tried to install the tube-well connection to the complainant but due to obstacles created  before the working staff of Nigam at site by Rajbir etc. the same could not be provided. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost  is prayed for.  
3.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, electricity bill Ex. C-2, copies of application Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-5, 
            Ranjit Singh Vs. UHBVN 
                    …4…
copies of sending report Ex. C-6 and Ex. C-7, application dated 31.5.2013 Ex. C-8, application dated 29.5.2013 Ex. C-9, copy of application dated 27.6.2013 Ex. C-10, application dated 17.7.2013 Ex. C-11 and copy of receipt Ex. C-12 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite party has produced the affidavit of Sh. Bir Bhan, SDO Ex. OP-1, copies of application dated 27.6.2013 Ex. OP-2 and Ex. OP-3 and copy of order dated 28.2.2014 Ex. OP-4 and closed the evidence.  
4.    We have heard the Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. It is admitted fact that the complainant had applied electricity tube-well connection in the year 2005 and deposited the amount of Rs.14,000/- on 16.2.2010 and again deposited Rs.7,000/- on 8.9.2011and nothing remain due towards the complainant. It is also admitted fact that  the opposite parties have  started the work of installation  the poles  of both sides and some poles were installed. It is also admitted fact that the complainant has also purchased the insulator, GSL wire and spot wire which was advised by the opposite parties but no connection was released  due to interference of neighbourers namely Raj Bir, Subhash Dharam Raj and Rames sons of  Kapoora on the same village. Due to not releasing the connection in question complainant moved the application to the XEN, UHBVN, Narwana, MD, UHBVN, Haryana and Deputy Commissioner, Jind vide applications dated 15.5.2012 Ex. C-3, dated 5.6.2013 Ex. C-4, dated 26.6.2013 Ex. C-5, dated 27.6.2013 Ex. C-10 and dated 17.7.2013 Ex. C-11  sent to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Narwana for 
            Ranjit Singh Vs. UHBVN 
                    …5…
giving the direction to release the tube-well connection to the UHBVN but all in vain. 
5.    On the other hand, the opposite parties have taken the stand that Raj Bir etc. has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the complainant in the court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Narwana which is still pending in the court and the same has not been decided. In view of the above facts, the opposite parties could not be release the tube-well connection till the decision of the civil court and even complainant is aware of the above said facts. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and present complaint is liable to be dismissed. 
6.    We have also perused the copy of the order dated 28.2.2014 of the Civil Court Ex. OP-4 as well as application addressed to SDO, Civil by AFM Om Parkash and application Ex. OP-3. There is no stay against the Nigam  for not releasing the connection in question and they have not placed any document from which inference can be drawn that the opposite parties have been restrained not to release the connection to the complainant. Besides this the opposite parties have failed to lodge any FIR against the person who are interfering in the work of the Nigam for installing the pole and releasing the tube-well connection nor they have tried to take police assistance for releasing the connection to the complainant. So in view of the above discussion, it is clear that the opposite party has not taken any step for releasing the connection since 2011 till date. Inspite of releasing the connection, the opposite party has also issued a bill amounting to 
            Ranjit Singh Vs. UHBVN 
                    …6…
Rs.625/- on 27.6.2013 arbitrary without any reason to the complainant. Whenever no connection has been released to the complainant how they can  send the bill in question to the complainant and the same is liable to be quashed. It is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and deficiency in service is established on the part of the opposite parties. Hence we have no hesitation to allow the complaint of the complainant. The complaint is allowed with cost and opposite party is directed not to charge the amount of bill dated 27.7.2013 and the same is hereby quashed and opposite parties are  further directed  to release the connection of the complainant within one month after receiving the certified copy of the order and they can take the police force for releasing the connection on the spot. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rs. ten thousand only) as compensation on account of mental pain and harassment  along with a sum of  Rs.3000/- (Rs. three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. The orders be complianced within one month.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 11.7.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

   

        Ranjit Singh Vs. UHBVN

Present:-    Sh. D.S. Lochab Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. V.K. Bhardwaj Adv. for opposite party. 
        Remaining arguments heard. To come up on 11.7.2016 for orders. 

                                                                           President,
            Member             Member        DCDRF, Jind
                                 8.7.2016

Present:-    Sh. D.S. Lochab Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. V.K. Bhardwaj Adv. for opposite party. 

         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint  is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
                                President,
            Member             Member        DCDRF, Jind
                                 11.7.2016