Haryana

Sonipat

CC/259/2015

Ranbir S/o Garib Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Satish Kumar Sharma

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

                                     Complaint No.259 of 2015

                                Instituted on:05.08.2015

                                Date of order:15.12.2015

 

Ranbir son of Garib Ram, resident of village Nahri, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

                                                     ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

UHBVN Ltd. ‘OP’ Sub Divn. Kundli, tehsil and distt. Sonepat through its SDO Kundli.

                                                     ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. SK Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Amit Balyan, Adv. for respondent.

 

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

           D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that he has applied for the release of tubewell electricity connection in the year 2009 and has deposited Rs.55,000/- with the respondent from time to time.  But till date the respondent has not released the electricity connection for the tubewell of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint against the respondent.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the  connection was to be provided to the consumer as per DS/NDS/AP category, but as per new circular of the Nigam, the electricity tubewell connection will be provided to the complainant under AP category as the said category has been separate/segregated from
DS and NDS category. There was seven poles more will be installed for supplying the electricity connection and to this effect, a notice vide serial no.7135 dated 1.10.2014 was issued to the complainant by the Nigam for depositing the extra amount for installation of seven poles, but the complainant till now did not deposit even a single penny with the respondent.  So, the complainant himself is liable for his act and conduct and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and has gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

 

4.        The main stand of the respondent is that the  connection was to be provided to the consumer as per DS/NDS/AP category, but as per new circular of the Nigam, the electricity tubewell connection will be provided to the complainant under AP category as the said category has been separate/segregated from DS and NDS category. There was seven poles more will be installed for supplying the electricity connection and to this effect, a notice vide serial no.7135 dated 1.10.2014 was issued to the complainant by the Nigam for depositing the extra amount for installation of seven poles, but the complainant till now did not deposit even a single penny with the respondent.

 

          In the present case, it is not disputed by the respondent that the complainant has applied for the release of tubewell electricity connection and has also deposited Rs.55000/- i.e. Rs.20,000/- as cost of the transformer and Rs.35000/- as cost of the poles and as expenses for other expenditure etc. with the respondent in the year 2009.  But as far as the contentions of the respondent that the  connection was to be provided to the consumer as per DS/NDS/AP category, but as per new circular of the Nigam, the electricity tubewell connection will be provided to the complainant under AP category as the said category has been separate/segregated from DS and NDS category or the complainant vide letter dated 1.10.2014 was directed to deposit the amount for installation of seven poles, the respondent has failed to produce any sales circular or any postal receipt etc. to prove that the respondent ever sent the letter dated 1.10.2014 to the complainant through registered post.  In our view, it is not justified on the part of the respondent  to demand the amount of seven more poles from the complainant in the year 2014 particularly when the complainant has already deposited Rs.35000/- with the respondent under the head of expenses of poles and other expenditure etc.  Further the respondent has not mentioned anywhere whether the demand of the amount of another seven poles includes the already paid amount of five poles or not. It was the duty of the respondent to make clear the complainant about their demand because it is the right of the complainant to know why he is paying the amount and for what he is paying the amount?

 

          Thus, we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondent. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to release the electricity tubewell connection to the complainant under the scheme it was applied for by the complainant in the year 2009, within one month after expiry of the period for filing appeal by the respondent before the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula against this order, if the respondent advised or desire so.

 

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to  both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced: 15.12.2015