Haryana

Karnal

155/2012

ShanKumar S/o Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

R.K. Arora

28 Oct 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.155 of 2012

                                                          Date of instt.14.03.2012

                                                          Date of decision: 18.03.2015

 

Shanti Kmar son of Shri Suresh Kumar resident of village Chaura tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                   Vs.

 

The Sub Divisional Officer, UHBVNL Sub Division, Newal tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                  …..Opposite Party.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

 

 

 

Present:-      Sh.R.K.Arora  Advocate for the complainant.

                   OP ex parte.

 

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that the complainant is consumer qua the OP vide tubwell connection bearing account No. AP-33/1501 and she has been paying the electricity dues regularly. It has been further alleged that about 9/10 months back the transformer installed in his field became out of order and the complainant time and again requested the OP to repair or replace the same but in vain which caused huge loss to the complainant as he was unable to irrigate his crops. Thus, alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint and ha sprayed that the OP be directed to repair/replace the transformer installed in his fields and be directed to pay the compensation and litigation expenses. He has also tendered his affidavit in evidence alongwith copy of the Jamabandi.

 

2.                On notice the OP appeared and filed its 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 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 tot try the present complaint.

 

                   On merits, it has been contended that OP has instlled the transformer of the complainant and there was no delay on the part of the OP as it is an official work and it costs some time.

 

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 circumstance of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that complainant is consumer qua the OP vide tubwell connection bearing account No. AP-33/1501 and she has been paying the electricity dues regularly. It has been further alleged that about 9/10 months back the transformer installed in his field became out of order and the complainant time and again requested the OP to repair or replace the same but in vain.

 

5.                However as par  the contention of the OP is that the transformer in question has since been installed and there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP as mentioned in w.s. dated 15.06.2012.

 

                   Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on the file   it is evident that the transformer in the field of the complainant has since been installed and as such the complaint in hand becomes infructuous as no further action is required to be taken. It is pertinent to mention here that  as per contention in the written statement, the transformer has been installed on 15.6.2012.  However, the affidavit filed by the complainant on 6.9.2012 seems to be false. Therefore, it has to be held that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

 

6.                Therefore, as a sequel  to our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and 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 : 18.03.2015                                                (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                                President,

District Consumer Disputes  

Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member

 

 

 

Present:-      Sh.R.K.Arora  Advocate for the complainant.

                   OP ex parte.

 

                   Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 18.3.2015

 

Announced

Dated : 17.03.2015                                                (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                                President,

District Consumer Disputes  

Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member

 

Present:-      Sh.R.K.Arora  Advocate for the complainant.

                   OP ex parte.

 

                   Vide our separate judgment 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 : 18.03.2015                                                (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                                President,

District Consumer Disputes  

Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member