Haryana

Karnal

72/2014

Karam Singh S/o Bakhtawar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijali Vitran Nigam ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Akash Gupta

29 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.72 of 2014

                                                               Date of instt. 19.03.2014

                                                               Date of decision: 01.10.2015

 

Karam Singh son of Sh.Bakhtawar  Singh resident of village Uplani tehsil Assandh district Karnal.

                                                   ……….Complainant.

                             Versus

 

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Division, Assandh tehsil Assandh District Karnal through its SDO “OP”.

                                                           ……… Opposite party.

 

                    Complaint U/s  12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.     

 

 Present:       Sh.Akash Gupta Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Parveen Mann Advocate for the OP.

ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he applied for one AP tubwell connection and paid a sum of Rs.30000/-  as material cost under the Tatkal Scheme,  on 30.8.2012, vide receipt No.655 against application No.66315 dated 27.4.2011. He also paid a sum of Rs.15,650/- on 9.10.2012 against receipt no.14 as span cost , security etc. However, he received  the notice bearing No.2825 dated  29.01.2014, vide which he was asked to pay the additional amount of Rs.43408/- .He approached the OP on 29.1.2012 and requested to issue him AP tubewell electricity connection, but the OP remained adamant to recover the additional amount, which was  clearly deficiency in services.  On account of  such unjustified demand, he suffered mental agony , harassment and financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complainant has no loucs standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint is not legally maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has not approached  the Forum with clean hands; that complainant is abuse of the process of law and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as per provisions of Section 141 of the  Indian Electricity Act.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that notice was sent to the complainant as per sales circular of the Nigam bearing No. U-16/2012. Revised estimate was prepared as per instructions of the Department and demand raised by the OP was legally justified. The other allegations made in the complaint  have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, he tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex. C2 to Ex.C4.

4.                The OP could not lead   any evidence and evidence was closed vide order dated 9.3.2015.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

6.                There is no dispute between the parties regarding that  complainant had  applied for AP Tubewell connection under Tatkal Scheme and deposited Rs.30,000/- on 30.8.2012 and thereafter Rs.15650/- as cost of one span and meter security etc. on 9.10.2012. Thereafter, OP raised demand of additional amount of Rs.43408/-, vide letter dated 29.1.2012, the copy of which is Ex.C2.

7.                As per case of the OP, the revised estimate was prepared as per instructions of the department and additional demand of Rs.43408/- on the basis of revised estimate was legally justified. In the written statement  a reference has also been made in respect of Sales circular No.U-16/2012. However, during course of arguments, the learned counsel for the OP submitted that Sales circular No. U-26/2012 and there was typographical mistake in the written statement mentioning the sales circular No. U-16 instead of U-26.

8.                It is pertinent to  note that in the demand notice Ex.C2, it has not been clarified as to  on what basis the revised estimate was prepared.  No copy of the site plan regarding preparation of  estimate was sent to the complainant.  Even, the OP

 

 

could not produce any evidence to substantiate the plea  put forth by it that the  revised estimate was prepared on the basis of  sales circular No.U-26/2012.

         

9.                On perusal of the file it revealed that one sales circular No.U-26/2012 was lying on the file, though the same was not tendered by OP in its evidence. During course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant produced the copy of sales circular No.U-25/2013.  The guidelines No.2,3,4 and  5-C to 5-F are the same in both the sales circulars.  However, there is no material on the file on the basis of which it can be said that revised estimate was prepared as per the guidelines mentioned in the said sales circulars. Therefore, the demand raised by the OP cannot be termed as legally justified.

10.               As a  sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint  to the effect that demand raised by the OP vide notice dated 29.1.2012, the copy of which is Ex.C2, is not legally justified. However, the OP would be at liberty to  raise fresh demand, if any, made out as per sales circulars nos. U-26/2012 and U-25/2013 and release the tubewell connection to the complainant within a period of  fifteen days  of meeting such demand. The complainant has certainly suffered harassment on account of not disclosing the details of the demand to him in the said demand notice, therefore,  the OP is directed to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant for mental harassment suffered by him and the litigation expenses. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:01.10.2015                                                                            

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:        Sh.Akash Gupta Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Parveen Mann Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted.  The   parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced
dated:01.10.2015                                                                             

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.