Haryana

Karnal

CC/207/2016

Shyam Singh S/o Dharam Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sandeep Chauhan

21 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.207 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 14.07.2016

                                                         Date of decision:21.03.2018

 

Shyam Singh son of Dharam Pal resident of village Munak tehsil Assandh District Karnal.

                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1.S.D.O. “OP” Sub Division, (UHBVNL) Munak, District Karnal.

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

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

              Ms. Veena Rani……..Member

              Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

               

 

 Present  Shri Sandeep Chauhan Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Yasbir Singh Advocate for opposite parties.

               

ORDER:                    

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainants u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that complainant was applied for SP electricity connection from OPs and OPs sanctioned estimate no.M-11/2015-16 and directed the complainant to deposit Rs.79713/-. Complainant deposited the said amount vide BA-16 no 285/101924 dated 12.06.2015. The OPs charged cost of span 410 meter from the complainant but as per sales circular no.U-27/2011 the length of 300 meter span has been rebate by the department and only 110 meter span length would  be charged from the complainant. As per sale circular no.U-25/2015 the rate of per meter span is Rs.70/- and total cost would be charged by the OPs from the complainant is Rs.7700/- but OPs sanctioned estimate of Rs.79710/- and charges Rs.79713/- from the complainant instead of Rs.7700/-. Thereafter, complainant moved an application to OP no.1 to refund the excess amount of Rs.72013/-. OP no.1 written a letter to the XEN for allowing the OP no.1 to refund the excess amount but XEN without any reason postponing the matter and now flatly refused to refund the excess amount. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi; maintainability; concealment of true and material facts; cause of action and jurisdiction. On merits, it is submitted that the electricity connection of the complainant was released on the basis of the estimate no.M-11/2015-16 and that estimate was prepared as per the sales circulars no.U-14/2015 i.e. latest sales circular of the Nigam and when the latest sales circular came into in existence then the old sales circular has no legal authenticity. The applicant has been taking the excuse of rebate on the basis of sales circular no.U-27/2011 which was not in existence on the day when the connection of the applicant was released or his estimate was prepared. Hence the estimate no.M-11/2015-16 was rightly and legally prepared as per the instructions of the Nigam and the amount of Rs.79713/- has rightly charged from him. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 20.09.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Dharam Pal SDO Ex.DW1/A and documents Ex.D2 to Ex.D4 and closed the evidence on 26.2.2018.

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.             According to the complainant, he applied for S.P. electricity connection and OPs sanctioned estimate no.M-11/2015-16 and in pursuance of same, complainant deposited Rs.79713/- with OPs vide BA-16 no.285/101924 dated 12.06.2015 for 410 meter span. It is further case of the complainant that as per circular no.U-25/2015, the OPs should have charged only for 110 meter at the rate of Rs.70/- per meter whereas the OPs had charged for the entire span of 410 meter. The complainant stated that the cost of 110 meter comes to Rs.7700/-, so the OPs be directed to refund the excess amount i.e. after deducting Rs.7700/- from Rs.79713/-.

7.             The OPs be contended that the estimate was prepared on the basis of sales circular no.U-15/2014 (though inadvertently written in reply as U-14/2015) and copy of the same produced as Ex.D-2 on the file. It is further contended that the sales circular no.U-25/2015 was not in force on 12.06.2015 when the amount was deposited by the complainant, therefore, the amount was got deposited as per circular which was in force at that time.

8.             From the submission of the parties, it is clear that the dispute between the parties is that what sales circular was in force and applicable in the case of complainant.

9.             It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of arguments, the complainant produced the copy of sales circular no.U-25/2-015, whereas the OPs have produced the copy of sales circular no.U-15/2014 in their evidence as Ex.D-2. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant has produced in his evidence a copy of letter written by OP no.1 to the XEN as Ex.C-2 in this regard for approval to adjust the difference but the same was rejected. On perusal of sales circular no.U-25/2015, it has become clear that this circular is a clarification of sale circular no.U-15/2014. No doubt this circular no.U-25/2015 was issued on 17.7.2015 i.e. after the deposit of estimated amount by the complainant but this circular only clarify the sales circular no.U-25/2014, therefore, it cannot be said that the same is applicable from 17.7.2015 rather the clarification of circular no.U-15/2014 is applicable from the date of issue of the same i.e. 1.4.2014. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs should have charged the estimated amount as clarified by circular no.U-25/2015 and the amount if charged in excess, the same should be adjusted but the OPs have not done so. Therefore, the OPs are deficient.

10.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.72013/-(Rs.79013-Rs.7700=72013/-) to the complainant with interest @ rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. We further direct OPs to pay Rs.2200/-to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with 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:21.03.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

            (Veena Rani)       (Anil Sharma)

                Member                Member