Haryana

Karnal

235/2012

Jagdish Sonof S/o Harkesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. J.P. Singh

28 Aug 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                           Complaint No.235 of 2012

                                                           Date of Instt. 9.05.2012

                                                           Date of decision:17.03.2015

 

Jagdish son of Sh.Harkesh resident of village Newal tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                     ……..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1. SDO, UHBVNL, Village Newal, tehsil and District Karnal.

2.XEN, UHBVNL, Karnal.

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before           Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                    Smt.Shashi Sharma       ……Member.

 

Argued by:-  Proxy for Sh. J.P.Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjiv Kamboj Advocate for the Ops.

 ORDER

           

                        In brief the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that complainant is having electricity tubwell connection bearing account No. M 1 510 and one transformer was also installed in the field of the complainant. On 29.12.2011, the said transformer was stolen by some unknown person and FIR No.9 dated 08.01.2012 was registered with the Police Station, Kunjpura in this respect. Thereafter, the complainant requested the Ops to install a new transformer but the same has not been installed even after service of legal notice dated 19.3.2012 which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops  for alleging deficiency in services and has sprayed that the Ops be directed to install a transformer in the fields of the complainant and to pay compensation for the loss of crops and the legal fee and litigation expenses. He has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint alongwith some other documents.

 

2.                On notice the Ops appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complainant has got no loucs standi to file the present complaint; that the present complaint was not legally maintainable; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands; that the present complaint was an abuse of the process of law land that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and to try the present complaint.

                   On merits, it was contended that on receipt of intimation regarding theft of the transformer, the Ops have prepared a seniority list and the transformer of the complainant would be installed on his turn.  Thus, it was alleged that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and dismissal of the complaint has been sought. SDO concerned has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contentions made in the written statement.

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

4.                Therefore,  from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it emerges that the complainant is consumer qua the Ops vide electricity tubwell connection bearing account No. M1 150 and the transformer installed in the fields of the complainant has been stolen and the FIR No. 9 dated 08.01.2012 was registered with the Police Station, Kunjpura in this respect.

5.                The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the transformer was stolen on 29.12.2011 and since then the transformer has not been installed and the complainant has suffered huge loss on account of negligence on the part of the Ops.

6.                The learned counsel for the Ops has argued that that as per sales circular No. U-17/2013, the complainant was required to deposit ten per cent of the cost of the transformer but the complainant has failed to deposit the said amount and as such as and when 10 % of the cost of the transformer would be deposited, the transformer would be installed in the fields of the complainant.

 

                   The operative portion of the Sales circular No..U-17/2013 is re-produced as under:

In view of the Minutes of Meeting held on 8.4.2012, under the Chairmanship of APSCM, GoH, the management decided that the transformer which were stolen before June, 2012 shall be replaced after depositing 10% of the cost by the farmers and the transformers which were stolen after June, 2012 will be replaced after depositing 20% of the cost.

 

                                                       

  7.                  In this case the transformer installed in the fields of the complainant was stolen on 29.12.2011 and as per Sales circular No.U-17/2013, the complainant was required to deposit ten per cent of the cost of the transformer but the said amount has not been deposited by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant   is himself at fault and there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

 

                 Therefore, as a sequel to our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and as such 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: 17.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Argued by:-  Sh.J.P.Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjiv Kamboj Advocate for the Ops.

 

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

 

 

Announced
dated: 17.03.2015                                                                            

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.