Haryana

Karnal

416/2012

Gopi Ram S/o Ishwar Dutt - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. A.S. Virk

08 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 416 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt. 31.08.2012

                                                               Date of decision:8.2.2016

 

Gopi Ram son of Shri Ishwar Dutt, resident of village Salwan, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. SDO(OP), Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Assandh.

2. XEN (OP) Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Division Karnal.

 

                                                                         ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

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

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh A.S.Virk Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. D.S.Mann Advocate for the opposite parties.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he was having electric connection bearing no.AP42-1615 for running tubewell. He had installed electricity motor of 15BHP and had been paying bills of consumed units/flat rate. The said connection was given under the scheme of cable connection and connection was installed through cable from the electricity pole. Previously, his connection was for 7.5 BHP. However, his tubewell had seized due to low ground water level, therefore, he installed submersible tubewell in the same Killa number at the distance of approximately 15-20 feet from the previous bore. After installation of new tubewell bore he applied to opposite party no.1 on 26.8.2009 for extending the load from 7.5BHP to 15BHP and deposited Rs.1650/- as extension charges, vide receipt no.81 dated 26.08.2009. The opposite party no.1 extended the load to 15BHP. Accordingly, he purchased electricity motor of 15BHP from M/s Aggarwal Mill Store, Assandh against receipt dated 24.7.2009. Checking party visited his tubewell and prepared the checking report at the spot. He was also present there at that time. The checking party asked him about the electricity meter and on that he explained that the tubewell was running at flat rate and he was paying the bills on flat rate regularly. The checking party raised objection that the motor of 17.5BHP was being used by him. He had shown the bill regarding purchase of motor of 15BHP, which was being used by him. As per the instructions of the ISI, a motor of 15BHP can consume enough amperes if the voltage is low. The checking party had also raised the objection that he had installed the tubewell connection at the distance of 170 feet from the pole shown in the sketch prepared by the checking party. He explained that the previous tubewell bore had seized and he again got installed his tubewell at the distance of 30 feet from the previous location of tubewell in the same killa number. He had shifted the bore of tubewell only and not the connection. Thereafter, opposite party no.1 issued letter no.1584 dated 24.6.2010 illegally and unauthorizedly demanding an amount of Rs.50,677/- as shifting charges. After issuance of the said letter the opposite party no.1 installed a new transformer under HVDS scheme and connected the cable from the new installed transformer.

                   It has further been pleaded that he had filed a civil suit in Civil Court Assandh for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, but due to technical defect the said suit was withdrawn on 28.5.2012 with permission to file a fresh. However, during the pendency of the civil suit he had deposited the disputed amount of Rs.50,677/- under protest, on 22.05.2012. After withdrawal of the said suit, the opposite party no.1 sent letter/memo no.3401 dated 29.5.2012 demanding a sum of Rs.5000/- on account of alleged extra load of 2.5BHP, whereas no such extra load was running at the spot. The said memos issued by the opposite party no.1 were illegal, unlawful and arbitrary. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, due to which he suffered mental agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action 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; that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint in view of provisions of section 145 of the Electricity Act.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the premises of the complainant was checked by the officials of the opposite parties on 29.4.2010 from 4.25 p.m. to 5.00p.m. and during the checking, the motor of the tubewell of the complainant was found running from the LT line of 100KVA transformer SOP to Shri Nanda i.e. three span back from the last pole and meter was not found in existence at the site. The capacity of the motor was 17.5BHP instead of sanctioned load of 15BHP. The distance of the motor was approximately 170’ from the pole as shown in the sketch plan prepared by the checking party in the LL-1. Thus, the complainant got shifted the connection to some other place without getting necessary permission from the defendants. LL1 form was duly signed by the complainant after admitting the same to be correct. It has further been averred that previously the opposite parties were getting the bills as per the reading consumed by the complainant, but after 8.8.2010 the opposite parties started getting bills at flat rate. Motor was duly installed in the premises of the complainant which was Nigam property, but the complainant misappropriated the same is illegal and unlawful manner. It has been asserted that the demands raised by the opposite parties were legal and justified. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1A and documents Ex. C2 to C8 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Bhupinder Singh SDO Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 have been tendered.

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

7.                The complainant was having electric connection for running tubewell and the initial sanctioned load was 7.5BHP, but lateron he got extended the load to 15BHP. As per the case of the complainant, his previous tubewell bore had seized, therefore, he got bore done at some distance, but the connection was not shifted by him. He was having cable connection as per the scheme of the opposite parties and the same was being used for running the tubewell. However, the opposite parties illegally raised demand of Rs.50,677/- for shifting the tubewell connection. It has further been alleged that he had purchased motor of 15BHP from M/s Aggarwal Mill Store, Assandh and the same was being used by him for running tubewell, but the checking party of the opposite parties wrongly mentioned in the checking report that the motor was of 17.5BHP. The complainant has challenged the demands of Rs.50,677/- regarding shifting of the tubewell connection and Rs.5000/- for extended load, on the ground that the same are illegal and arbitrary. The opposite parties have submitted that the checking party checked the premises of the complainant on 29.4.2010 in his presence and found that he had unauthorizedly shifted the electric connection, the meter installed at his premises was found missing and he was using motor of 17.5BHP against the sanctioned load of 15BHP.

8.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset that it is admitted fact that the complainant had previously filed civil suit against opposite parties for declaration and permanent injunction disputing the demand raised by the opposite parties for Rs.50,677/- regarding authorized shifting of the tubewell connection. In the said suit, he had filed application for ad-interim injunction which was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the complainant was also dismissed by the then learned District Judge, Karnal, vide judgment dated 11.5.2012, the copy of which is Ex.OP3. Thereafter, complainant had withdrawn the said civil suit on 20.5.2012 with permission to file fresh one.

9.                Admittedly, the checking party had checked the premises of the complainant on 29.4.2010 in his presence and prepared report, which was also signed by the complainant. Except the affidavit of the complainant, there is no other evidence on record, which may show that he was having direct cable connection from the LT line of 100KVA transformer i.e. three span back from the last pole and the distance of his connection was not about 170’ from the pole, as was shown in the sketch plan prepared by the checking party in his presence. If, the connection was not shifted by the complainant to another location for running the tubewell installed after seizure of his first tubewell, then he could certainly lodge protest to the checking party and sign the report under protest, but no such protest was lodged by him. These facts and circumstances clearly show that he had shifted the tubewell connection from the original place and distance of the same was 170’ from the last pole. Therefore, the contents of the affidavit of the complainant in this regard cannot be taken to be the gospel truth and the same is not sufficient to establish his plea. As the complainant had shifted his tubewell connection authorizedly from the original place to another place, the opposite parties are certainly entitled to recover shifting charges from the complainant and there was no deficiency in service on their part by raising such legal and justified demand.

10.              Learned counsel for the complainant has laid emphasis on the contention that the motor of the complainant was of 15BHP and the checking party wrongly mentioned in the report that the load was of 17.5BHP. In this regard, he has referred to the copy of the bill Ex.C4, according to which the complainant had purchased one motor on 24.7.2009 from  M/s Aggarwal Mill Store, Assandh for Rs.22500/-.

11.              The copy of the receipt Ex.C3 indicates that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.1650/- for extension of load from 7.5 BHP to 15BHP on 26.8.2009 i.e. after purchasing the motor. If, the motor was of 15BHP, plate must have been affixed on the same to that effect and complainant could certainly point out to the checking party that the motor was of 15BHP only. He could lodge protest in the checking report before putting his signatures, but there is no evidence that he had lodged such protest. Moreover, sometimes less load is mentioned on the motor, but the motor consumes more electricity. The checking party must have used some instrument for checking the load and on the basis of the same it was reported that the load was of 175BHP and not 15BHP. Therefore, the opposite parties are entitled to get recover the amount of extra 2.5BHP load, which was being used unauthorizedly by the complainant against sanctioned load of 15BHP. Consequently, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, while raising demand of Rs.5000/- for sanctioning the extended load.

12.              As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 8.2.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member