Haryana

Karnal

CC/211/2016

Ruda Uft Rulda S/o Ran Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Kuldeep Singh Tarar

17 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.211 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 20.07.2016

                                                         Date of decision:17.01.2018

 

Ruda @ Rulda Ram son of Shri Ran Singh resident of village Shekhpura Tehsil Indri District Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                           …….Complainant.   

                                        Versus

 

Sub Divisional Officer, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Indri District Karnal.

                                      

                                                                     …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President

              Ms. Veena Rani…….Member

      Sh. Anil Sharma………Member

             

 

 Present  Shri Kuldip Singh Advocate for complainant.

                OP exparte though Shri Yashbir Singh Adv. for OP.

               

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had an electricity tubewell connection for 7.5 BHP bearing no.AP15-1361, old no.M1-188. On 28.9.2012 complainant moved an application for extension of load for 12.5 BHP and deposited Rs.3950/-, vide receipt no.248 dated 28.9.2012 with the OP in that regard. After moving the application dated 28.9.2012 the OP started to give the bill for extended load i.e.12.5 BHP, but till today no transformer has been installed by the OP. The son of complainant moved an application dated 5.6.2015 in that regard, but OP gave no response whereas no transformer of 12.5 BHP was installed till today. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and locus standi; jurisdiction and concealments of true and material facts.  On merits, it has been submitted that complainant got increased the load under the HVDS scheme and in said scheme the consumer after increasing the load at site applies of enhancement of his load in the record of the office concerned. In such circumstances, there was no reason to increase the capacity of the transformer as the motor of 12.5BHP has already been running at the spot and complainant using the same without any disturbance. No application as alleged on 5.6.2015 has been moved to the OP. It has been further submitted that the matter for allocation of transformer has been sent to the upper Authorities and as and when the transformer would be available, same will be provided/installed by the OP. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 21.4.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OP led no evidence as the OP has proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 23.8.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             From the pleading and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant had an electricity connection on his tubewell for 7.5BHP having no.AP15-1361-P, old no.MI-188 and on 28.9.2012 regarding the same.

7.             The complainant alleged that a transformer of 7.5 BHP was installed by the OP for his 7.5 BHP tubewell connection. He further alleged that the complainant has moved an application for extension of load on 28.9.2012 from 7.5 BHP to 12.5 BHP. After the application dated 28.9.2012 for extension of load, the OP has started the bill for the 12.5 BHP whereas no transformer for 12.5 BHP has been installed. The complainant argued that it is not possible that a motor of 12.5 BHP can be run from a transformer of 7.5BHP.

8.             The OP contended that the complainant got increased the load under HVDS scheme and in said scheme the consumer after increasing the load at the sight applies for the enhancement for the same and in these circumstances, there was no reason to increase the capacity of the transformer as the motor of 12.5 BHP has already been running at the spot.

9.             From the pleading and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the complainant had tubewell connection of 7.5 BHP for which a transformer of 7.5 BHP was installed by the OP. It is also clear that the complainant has applied for enhancement of load from 7.5 to 12.5 BHP vide application dated 28.9.2012. It is not denied by the OP that after the application dated 28.9.2012 of the complainant, the OP has started giving bill for 12.5 BHP without installing the transformer of 12.5 BHP. Therefore, the contention of complainant has force that a motor of 12.5 BHP cannot be properly run from the supply of electricity of 7.5 BHP transformer. Moreover, it is admitted by the OP in their reply in para no.6 on merits that the matter for allocation of transformer has been sent to the upper Authorities and as and when the transformer would be available, same will be installed by the OP which clearly indicates that the same has not been installed at the tubewell of complainant till now. Therefore, it is very much clear that without installing the transformer of higher capacity, the OP has started charging the bill for higher BHP connection. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OP has wrongly started charging the bill for 12.5 BHP instead of 7.5 BHP without installing the transformer of said capacity. Therefore, the OP was deficient in service. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has only prayed for installation of the transformer of 12.5 BHP capacity and not prayed for adjustment for excess payment made by him.

10.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to install the 12.5 BHP capacity transformer within 60 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP will return entire excess amount charged from the complainant on the account of extension of load. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:17.01.2018

                                                               

                                                                 President,

                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                      (Veena Rani)        (Anil Sharma)

                          Member                 Member