Haryana

Kaithal

242/21

Rajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitan Nigam - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Hem Raj Wadhwa

29 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 242 of 2021.

                                                               Date of institution:   08.10.2021.

                                                               Date of decision:      29.02.2024.

 

Rajinder Singh s/o Shri Dhoop Singh, r/o village Saran, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                      Versus

 

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban, Sub Division No.2, UHBVN, Kaithal.
2. Surender Sharma s/o Shri Darshan Sharma, r/o village Deoban, District Kaithal, posted in the office of SDO S/U Sub Division No.2, UHBVN Kaithal.
3. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula, through its Chairman.  

...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Hem Raj Wadhwa, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Shri Ramesh Kumar Rana, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT:

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), against the OPs.

2.                In the complaint, complainant alleged that he had applied for electric tube-well connection for his tube-well at village Saran for 10 HP in the year 2019, after depositing Rs.30,000/- with OP. That OP issued a Demand Notice No.330 dated Nil to deposit total Rs.100704/- till 30.04.2021, as such, complainant deposited Rs.70704/- on 30.04.2021, total Rs.100704/- (30000+70704). That as per site, the said proposed connection is only for one pole LT Connection. That the OPs got deposited the amount of one pole LT connection of one Harpal Singh s/o Narayan, r/o village Saran for Rs.12500/- + Rs.25000/- and OPs have already issued one Pole LT connection to many other consumers of the OPs. That OPs malafidely and intentionally have not released the said one Pole LT Connection to him till now. That the OPs illegally and unlawfully got deposited Rs.100704/- from him i.e. excess amount of Rs.58205/-, causing loss to him, so he is legally entitled to refund back the said excess amount of Rs.58205/- from the OPs. That he completed all the formalities as required by the OPs, but till today, OPs have not released the connection to him. That he moved an application to CM Window, Kaithal on 27.08.2021 for taking necessary action against OPs, but all in vain. The above act of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on its part, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement, submitting therein that on 29.12.18 complainant applied for AP (Agriculture Purpose) connection for 10 HP/7.46 KW online, vide application No.X-1218-548 and thereafter OPs issued a demand notice to the complainant to pay consent money as per norms of UHBVN and complainant deposited Rs.30000/- on 22.4.19. Thereafter, estimate was framed/prepared from existing 25 KVA transformer SOP to Bheem Singh s/o Rattu Ram having Account No.DD04-1894 with the help of two PCC Pole for a distance of 70 mtrs. from the existing 25 KVA transformer of SOP to Bheem Singh. Area in Charge framed the estimate for the total amount of Rs.100704/- for complete installation material, labour expenses and full cost of 63 KVA transformer, which was submitted to concerned office of SDO and same estimate was passed vide Estimate No.SUKR/TWC/77/2021-22. That OP No.1 issued final demand notice to the complainant, vide Memo No.330 dated 15.4.2021 for paying balance amount. In the said final demand notice, it is clearly mentioned that the site of the connection of the complainant may be changed as per availability/position of the site and if the complainant required to pay more amount, then it must be paid by him, as per norms of OPs and for this, he will not take action against the OPs. The complainant came to the office of OP No.1 and inquired about the total estimate amount, instead of sharing amount. Thereafter, the complainant went to the bank directly and inadvertently, willfully and by mistake deposited the full estimate amount i.e. Rs.70704/- in the account of OPs, instead of sharing cost i.e. Rs.10861/-. That as per Sales Circular No.U-37/2019 dated 19.12.2019 and norms of OPs mentioned in final demand notice dated 15.04.2021, the cost of the transformer will be sharing with existing consumer of SOP to Bhim Singh and the transformer sharing cost of Rs.14134/-, estimate amount of Rs.24377/- and meter cost of Rs.2350/-, total Rs.40861/- and after the deduction of consent money of Rs.30,000/- i.e. only Rs.10861/- were to be paid, by the complainant, instead of total estimate amount. That as per sales Circular No.U-10/2019 and U-20/2021, the depth of water level in Kaithal block is more than 30 meter and is 34.44 meter and it is clearly mentioned in (b) Clause of Para No.1 of said sale circular that “where water table is below 30 meter of depth, installation of Micro Irrigation System shall be a pre-requisite condition for release of tube well connection. For this purpose, farmer can install any type of Micro Irrigation System for example sprinkle irrigation system, drip irrigation system and mini sprinkle irrigation system. It is further stated in above said sales circular that for authentication of installation of MI System, a certificate from the department of MICADA shall be mandatory. Resultantly, some more primary conditions for release of tube well connection are formed as per sales circular mentioned above. Thus, the OPs have duly performed their duty as per sales circulars and norms of UHBVN and the present complaint is false and liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C4.

5.                On the other hand, OPs in their evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-10.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has admitted that the OPs have now released the electric tube-well connection to the complainant. He further admitted that the OPs have also refunded back the excess amount to the complainant but contended that the OPs have released the said excess amount to the complainant after a period of one year from the date of depositing the same by the complainant with the OPs. He further argued that the above act and conduct of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, for which, the OPs are liable to be compensated with compensation amount along with litigation expenses.

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the OPs have already installed the electric tube well connection of the complainant as well as refunded back the excess amount of Rs.59843/- to the complainant on 17.03.2022, as such, the OPs have resolved both the grievances of the complainant, as sought by the complainant, in the complaint in hand, Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9.                Admittedly, the complainant has applied for electric tube well connection to the OPs and paid Rs.30,000/- on 22.04.2019 Annexure C-1 and Rs.70704/- on 30.04.2021 Annexure C-3 according to Demand Notice dated 15.04.2021 Annexure C-2, issued by the OPs, to the complainant.

10.              The first grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have not released his electric tube well connection, which has now been released, by the OPs, and this fact has also been admitted, by learned counsel for the complainant, during the course of arguments.

11.              The other grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have taken excess amount from the complainant, which should be refunded back to the complainant, and now the OPs have refunded back the amount of Rs.59,843/- to the complainant on 17.03.2022, as is evident from document Mark-A, which has also been admitted, by learned counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments. The complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.70704/-, with the OPs on 30.04.2021, and contrary to it, the OPs have refunded back the amount of Rs.59843/- to the complainant on 17.03.2022 i.e. after about 11 months, from the date of depositing the said amount, by the complainant with the OPs on 30.04.2021 as well as after filing the present complaint, by the complainant on 08.10.2021, which is an act of gross deficiency in service, on the part of OPs, due to which, the complainant might have suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss and lastly, forced to file the present complaint, before this Commission, therefore, certainly the complainant is entitled to get the compensation amount as well as litigation expenses, for filing the present complaint, from the OPs.

12.              In view of our above discussion, we partly accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay the compensation amount of Rs.3000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-, to the complainant, within a period of 45 days, from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the total award amount shall carry interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization.

13.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.        

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:29.02.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.