Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 139.
Instituted on : 24.03.2015.
Decided on : 26.07.2016.
Kaptan Singh Dhaka son of Sh. Maha Singh resident of ward No.13 Meham, Tehsil Meham Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Executive Engineer.
- Executive Engineer UHBVN, Sub Urban Sub Division No.1, Power House, Near Medical Mor, Rohtak.
- S.D.O. Operation, UHBVN, Sub Division Opposite Govt. College Meham.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Pankaj Kaushik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that complainant is consumer of opposite parties vide account no.R34H5911010PY and meter No.FD1140. It is averred that the meter installed by the opposite parties is domestic(DS) at the residence of the complainant in his fields. It is averred that as per the scheme of the department the power lines of the domestic purpose and agriculture purpose have been divided and the connections were distributed separately. It is averred that the connection of the complainant was disconnected by the opposite parties during this scheme and despite repeated requests of the complainant, meter was not connected. It is averred that even after disconnection of meter, the bills were issued on average basis and complainant had paid the bills. It is averred that a latest bill was issued to the complainant of Rs.12880/- on dated 24.12.2014 for his disconnected meter. Complainant approached the opposite party no.3 to remit the dues of disconnected meter but he showed himself helpless and insisted upon to pay the dues without any fault of complainant. It is averred that complainant served a legal notice upon the opposite parties on 19.01.2015 and also made complaint in CM Grievance cell on dated 02.02.2015 but opposite parties have done nothing. It is averred that in reply to the application before the CM Cell, the complainant was stunned to see that an amount of Rs.105512/-was to be deposited in the department for electricity connection. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment, to repay the deposited amount alongwith interest, to connect the electricity meter of the complainant as well as to remit all the dues of the bill which the opposite parties are claiming of the disconnected meter till the time of the reconnection of the electricity meter, to pay Rs.11000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement submitting therein that on the request of complainant, the officials are ready to divert the line/connection from AP Feeder to Urban Feeder supply and estimate Rs.105512/- was sent to the complainant for change his feeder. It is averred that the opposite parties have never disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant. On merits it is submitted that complainant never gave any application for disconnect the meter and nor the opposite parties disconnected his connection. Hence the complainant is liable to pay the consumption/current bill. It is averred that it is correct that bill of Rs.12880/- dated 24.10.2014 was issued to the complainant. It is averred that it is the responsibility of the complainant to deposit the estimated amount of Rs.105512/- and then only the feeder can be changed on the application of the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. It is prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that the electric connection bearing meter No.FD1140 was in the name of complainant. As per the applications Ex.C6 to Ex.C8 moved by the complainant, his connection was disconnected by the department due to HVDS scheme of the department but the bills were issued regularly by the opposite parties. Through these applications, complainant requested the opposite parties to restore his connection and to waive off the bills. As per his complaint Ex.C3 complainant moved his application with the CM Grievances Cell and in reply to the same opposite party vide its letter Ex.C4 has submitted that opposite party has prepared the estimate of Rs.105512/- to connect the supply from Urban feeder after disconnection of supply from AP Feeder and complainant was directed to deposit the alleged amount of Rs.105512/-. On the other hand, opposite parties have placed on record copy of reply Ex.R1/Ex.C4 and copy of document Ex.R2 whereby it is submitted that the supply to the meter No.FD-1140 was disconnected due to HVDS scheme at Town Meham under S/Divn. Meham and an estimate of Rs.105512/- has been prepared to provide the supply to the complainant’s connection from Urban feeder after disconnection of supply from AP Feeder.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that opposite parties have not placed on record the alleged HVDS scheme to prove that whether the connection was disconnected as per the scheme or that whether the consumer was liable to pay the alleged estimated cost. The complainant has never applied for change of his feeder from AP to Urban Feeder. It was only the scheme of the department to shift the lines from one place to another, then why the consumer should be burdened with the cost of shifting the same. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 2015(1)CLT 175 titled as SDO City Sub Division Vs. Om Parkash Jain whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Electricity-Tubewell connection-OP wants to change the connection of complainant from agriculture to commercial one-Plea of OP that as per circular NDS tariff shall be levied to the tubewells installed in the limits of Municipal Committee instead of agriculture purpose tariff-Complainant was asked to get the connection shifted because on domestic line the electricity is supplied to 20 to 22 hours whereas for agricultural connections supply is only for 7-8 hours-Held-If electricity is supplied for more hours it does not mean that the complainant is responsible for the same-It is for the department to shift the connection from one line to another line-If agriculture feeder is not available nearby it is not fault of the complainant-it is the duty of the opposite party to make the same available-Appeal dismissed”. In view of the aforesaid law which is applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the imposing of alleged amount of Rs.105512/- upon the complainant is illegal and complainant is not liable to pay the same. It is also observed that the opposite parties vide document Ex.R2 has admitted the fact that the supply of A/c No.FD 1140 was disconnected due to HVDS scheme but the date of disconnection is not mentioned. On the other hand, despite disconnection of supply of meter, opposite parties issued regular bills to the complainant which the complainant was not liable to pay.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that opposite parties shall restore the connection of the complainant from AP Feeder without charging any amount from the complainant. If as per the scheme of the opposite parties, the change of feeder is necessary, then opposite parties shall change the same at their own costs. Opposite parties are further directed to adjust the amount paid by complainant towards bills issued during disconnection of his meter in future bills and also to pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
26.07.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
