Haryana

StateCommission

A/17/2016

VIMAL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

01 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :        17 of 2016

Date of Institution:      06.01.2016

Date of Decision :       01.02.2016

 

Vimal Kumar s/o Sh. Sat Parkash, Village Gajlana, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

1.     The Superintendent Engineer (Op) Circle Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Kurukshetra.

2.     Sub Divisional officer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Babain.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Appellant in person.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Vimal Kumar-complainant/appellant, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘the District Forum’), with the allegations that he applied for extension of load from 15 BHP to 20 BHP, with respect to the electric connection of his tubewell, on 25^th September, 2012, but the same was not extended. It was further stated that besides his own land measuring 7 acres and 4 Kanals, he also cultivates 22 acres land of his brothers and other persons. Thus, he sought compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs on account of loss of crops and harassment etcetera.

2.        The respondents/opposite parties, filed reply stating that since the transformer earlier installed was full of capacity, so extension of load required higher capacity of transformer and same being done, the load stood already enhanced on 22^nd April, 2014.

3.      The District Forum dismissed the complaint by observing that the complainant only owns 7 acres and 4 Kanals of land and failed to lead evidence that he had been cultivating any other land. Besides the fact that the load already stood extended, even otherwise 15 BHP load was sufficient to irrigate 7 acres of land of the complainant. In this view of the matter, the District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint. No case for interference is made out.

4.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.  

 

Announced 01.02.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL