Haryana

Karnal

358/2013

Sulinder Singh S/o Mewa Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. A.S. Virk

30 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.358 of 2013

                                                              Date of instt. 19.08.2013

                                                                Date of decision:30.05.2016

 

 Sulinder Singh son of late Shri Mewa Singh, resident of village Garhi Sadhan, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

 

                                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Managing Director, Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

2. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its SDO(OP), Sub Division, Indri.

 

                                                                                    ……… 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. P.S. Bhatti 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 his father Mewa Singh was having an electric tubewell connection no.AP27-1300-N of 10 BHP. As per policy of the department of the opposite parties, an individual transformer of 10KVA was installed for the said tubewell connection. After the death of his father he had been using the said tubewell and paying the electricity bills regularly and thus became consumer of the opposite parties. On 7.5.2010 he got extended the load of the said tubewell connection from 10 BHP to 12.5 BHP, due to low water level and deposited a sum of Rs.1200/- with the opposite parties, vide receipt no.8 dated 7.5.2010. After extension of the load new transformer of 15KVA was required to be installed on the said tubewell connection, but the same was not installed by the opposite parties, due to which the motor of his tubewell burnt many times. The said transformer of 10KVA went out of order due to over load. He moved an application to opposite party no.1 on 3.8.2011 and on that transformer was inspected by Karam Chand Assistant Line Man (ALM) and he found that the transformer had burnt due to over load and the oil tank had leaked. The transformer was repaired, but was not changed, due to which his crop was damaged and he suffered huge financial losses. In January, 2013 the said transformer again burnt. He approached the opposite party no.1 and requested to replace the same by new transformer of 15KVA, but the matter was delayed. His crop of about Rs.2,00,000/- was damaged. Thereafter, on 18.4.2013 he moved an application to Superintendent Engineer Sub Division, Karnal for changing the transformer from 10KVA to 15KVA, but nothing was done. On 13.5.2013, he again moved an application. The said application was marked to ALM, who inspected the transformer and reported that the said transformer had damaged due to capacity of 10KVA, but despite that the transformer was not changed. Due to lack of water and irrigation his paddy crop was totally damaged and had to purchase ‘Paddy Paudh’ @ Rs.3000/- from the market. Ultimately, he got served a legal notice dated 6.7.2013 upon the opposite parties, but the same also did not yield any result. Thus, the act of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service, due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant on various grounds. 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 come to this forum with clean hands;  that this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint and that the complaint is an abuse of process of law.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that on 7.5.2010 the complainant got extended the load from 10BHP to 12.5BHP under V.D.S. Scheme and deposited Rs.1200/-. Thereafter, the opposite parties proceeded the matter with the higher authorities and after the allocation of the transformer, the same was changed. The transformer never became overloaded and there was no break down. The transformer had burnt due to some other reasons and the problem was removed by the opposite parties. Transformer was not available with the Nigam and as soon as the same was made available by the higher authorities the same was replaced. In this way, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A  and documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C20 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Deepak Kaushik  Sub Divisional Officer Ex. RW1/A has been tendered.

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

6.                Admittedly, before filing the written statement transformer of 15 KVA was installed by the opposite parties for tubewell connection of the complainant. Therefore, the relief of the complainant directing the opposite parties to install the new transformer of 15KVA in place of 10KVA became infructuous.

7.                The learned counsel for the complainant has laid stress on the contention that the complainant applied for extension of load on 7.5.2010 and deposited the required amount of Rs.1200/-, but till filing of the complaint the transformer was not replaced by transformer of 15KVA despite extension of load from 10BHP to 12.5BHP and due to such deficiency in service the transformer of 10 KVA burnt many times and as a result of that his crop was damaged and he suffered mental agony and harassment apart from financial loss, therefore, he is entitled to get compensation in this regard.

8.                The report of the Project Engineer Ex.C5 is the most material document, according to which the transformer was damaged due to overloading as the consumer had extended his load to 12.5 BHP from 10BHP and the transformer  installed was as per old sanctioned load i.e. of 10KVA. The said report was submitted to Sub Divisional Officer Operation on 03.01.2013. The complainant had moved applications Ex.C7 to C11 for getting installed transformer of 15KVA instead of 10KVA after extension of the load from 10BHP to 12.5BHP. Thus, it is emphatically clear that the transformer of 10KVA installed for electric connection for the complainant had burnt due to overloading as higher capacity transformer was required to be installed for extended load. There is no evidence of the opposite parties that transformer of 15KVA was not available in the store and it was beyond their control to install new transformer for the extended load. The record of correspondence with the higher authorities for getting permission to install 15KVA transformer has not been produced by the opposite parties in order to show their inability to install new transformer within the reasonable time of the extension of the load. Thus, there was certainly deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not installing the 15KVA transformer within reasonable time due to which the complainant must have suffered some losses, because the transformer burnt due to overloading and till repair of the same the complainant could not be able to irrigate his land. The complainant has also produced the bills regarding winding of his motor Ex.C12 to C16, but from these bills it is not proved that the motor had burnt on account of non-installation of 15KVA transformer by the opposite parties. The motor may burn due to various reasons including negligence of the operator and not functioning of the starter and other equipments properly.

9.                In view of the foregoing circumstances, we arrive at the conclusion that the complainant is certainly entitled to compensation for mental harassment and losses suffered by him during the period the transformer burnt due to overloading. Thus, we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and loss suffered by him as well as 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: 30.05.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member