Haryana

Karnal

275/2013

Dalbir Singh S/o Darshan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijle Vitran Nigam Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Akash Gupta

05 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                               Complaint No.275 of 2013

                                                             Date of instt.:10.06.2013

                                                               Date of decision:5.10.2016

 

Dalbir Singh son of Shri Darshan Singh resident of village Danaul, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sub Division, Assandh, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal through its S.D.O. “OP”.

                                                                   ………… Opposite Party.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

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

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Akash Gupta Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. G.S. Arora Advocate for the Opposite party.

                  

 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 tubewell connection and deposited a sum of Rs.630, estimated cost of Rs.20,000/- and meter security plus pole charges of Rs.9750/- with the opposite party. The opposite party erected the poles and electric line and only connection was to be released. However, he received the notice dated 7.5.2013, whereby the opposite party asked him to pay additional amount as the estimate was again prepared. Thereafter, he approached the opposite party and told that he had already deposited the required amount as per demand and estimate and was not liable to pay any additional amount for getting the connection, but the opposite party did not pay any heed to his request and remained adamant to recover the additional amount for releasing the connection. Such act and conduct on the part of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service, which caused him mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint; that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that the complaint is an abuse of process of law and that this forum has got no jurisdiction as provisions of section 145 of the Indian Electricity Act.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that notice bearing no.359 dated 7.5.2013 was issued to the complainant directing him to pay the additional amount as per sales circular no.U-11 of 2012 and he was legally bound to pay the additional amount of Rs.68096/- for getting released the connection. In this way, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit EX.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C9 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of Gagan Pandey Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 and Ex.O3 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                Admittedly, the complainant had applied for AP electricity tubewell connection. On 3.7.2009 he deposited an amount of Rs.600+30=630/-, vide receipt, the copy of which is Ex.C6. Thereafter, he deposited Rs.20,000/- for material cost estimate, on 20.6.2011, vide receipt, the copy of which is Ex.C7. He further deposited Rs.9750/- as meter security plus Rs.7000/-for one span on 28.07.2011, as is evident from the copy of the receipt Ex.C8. The demand of the additional amount was raised by the opposite party, vide letter dated 7.5.2013, the copy of which is Ex.C9. It was not mentioned as to what was the additional amount which the complainant was required to deposit.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party laid emphasis on the contention that fresh estimate was prepared as per sales circular no.U-11/2012, as transformer was required to be installed for single connection of the complainant and he was to bear full cost of release of connection i.e. the line and transformer cost. Therefore, the demand raised by the opposite party was in accordance with the sales circular and legally justified.

8.                To wriggle out the aforesaid contention learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant had applied for tubewell connection on 3.7.2009 and thereafter deposited estimated material cost on 20.6.2011 and meter security and one span charges on 28.7.2011. He was to be released connection as per the demand notice issued to him in the year 2011, according to which he deposited the estimate amount and the other charges and was not liable to pay as per sales circular no.U-11/2012. He was entitled to get released the connection under old scheme and not under sales circular, which was issued in the year 2012. Therefore, demand of the additional amount by the opposite party was not legally justified. In support of his contention he relied upon Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Versus Shyam Lal III(2007) CPJ 87 (NC), Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors Versus Mukandi Lal III(2007) CPJ 51 (NC) and Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another Versus Jai Singh Gar 2009(1) CLT page 710.

9.                In Shyam Lal’s case supra security amount for tubewell connection was deposited on 14.09.1989-Test report was submitted on 14.02.1992-Additional amount was demanded after 10 years for release of the connection. Under those circumstances, it was held by Hon’ble National Commission that in view of instruction no.26(3) of Sales Manual Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. could not have issued additional demand after about 10 years of submitting the test report as a condition for release of tubewell connection to the complainant. Additional demand was raised unnecessarily and was not justified.

10.              In Mukandi Lal’s case supra  tubewell connection was applied on 2.1.1987 and security amount was deposited. Test report was submitted on 22.9.1987 in response to demand notice, but connection was not given. More money was demanded after lapse of 14 years as per notification issued in the year 2001. Under those circumstances, it was held by Hon’ble National Commission that the complainant was governed by then prevailing instructions and not by the notification of 2001 as Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. failed to provide electricity connection within prescribed time after receipt of test report, there was no deficiency in service.

11.              In Jai Singh’s case supra application for tubewell connection was made in the year 1987. Test report was submitted and formalities were completed in the year 1989. Sales circular no.77/2001 was issued on 2.9.2001 and then the complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- with an additional amount of Rs.7000/- per span, which was not refundable. Under those circumstances, it was held by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh that demand notice was issued to the complainant, therefore, his case was to be considered in accordance with and under the terms and conditions he applied for and in accordance with demand notice issued to him. The Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. failed to show that Sales circular of 2001 had retrospective effect.

12.              The proposition of law laid down in the aforediscussed authorities squarely covers the facts of the present case as well. The complainant had applied for tubewell connection on 3.7.2009. Demand notice after preparing estimate for material cost was issued and thereafter the complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- on 20.06.2011 as estimated cost and Rs.9750/- for meter security and one span charges on 28.7.2011. Therefore, the case of the complainant was to be covered by rules/sales circular of the opposite party at the time of issuing the demand notice and the instruction issued under sales circular no.U-11/2012 were not applicable. Consequently, the notice dated 7.5.2013 issued by the opposite party raising demand of the additional amount was not legally justified. Such act on the part of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service.

13.              During the course of arguments learned counsel for the parties pointed out that the complainant deposited the additional amount during pendency of the complaint and connection was released to him on 10.6.2014. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is entitled to get refund of the additional amount got deposit from him during pendency of the complaint for releasing the connection. The complainant deposited Rs.66121/- on 7.8.2014 as the additional demand raised by the opposite party, therefore, he is entitled to get refund of the said amount.

14.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to refund Rs. 66121/- alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit i.e.7.8.2014 till its realization. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3300/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 5.10.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member