Haryana

StateCommission

A/1239/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DALBIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

13 Jul 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.1239 of 2016

Date of the Institution:20.12.2016

Date of Decision:13.07.2017

 

 

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigaam Ltd., Sub-Division, Assandh, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal through its S.D.O (O.P)

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

 

Dalbir Singh son of Shri Darshan Singh, resident of village Danaul, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal.

                                                                   .….Respondent

Present:-    Mrs.Alka Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Dalbir Singh, respondent in person.

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

1.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. is in appeal against the Order dated 05.10.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Dalbir Singh has been allowed, by directing the OP to refund Rs.66,121/- alongwith interest thereon @9% per annum, from the date of deposit i.e.7.8.2014 till its realization as also Rs.3,300/- to the complainant, on account of mental agony, harassment suffered by him by way of litigation expenses.

2.      Briefly stated, the Complainant applied for one AP tubewell connection with the OP and deposited a sum of Rs.630/-, estimated cost of Rs.20,000/- and meter security plus pole charges of Rs.9750/-. The opposite party erected the poles and electric line and only connection was to be released, when he received the notice dated 07.05.2013, from the OP asking him to pay an additional amount, as fresh estimate was prepared. Thereafter, the complainant approached and told that he had already deposited the requisite amount as per their demand and estimate and was not liable to pay any additional amount for getting the connection. But the opposite party did not pay any heed to his request and remained adamant to recover the additional amount for releasing the connection. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum for the refund of the amount alongwith interest.

3.      In their reply, OPs contesting the claim of the complainant, pleaded that the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint and the District Forum had no jurisdiction, in view of the provisions of section 145 of the Indian Electricity Act. On merits, it was pleaded that notice bearing no.359 dated 7.5.2013 was issued to the complainant directing him to pay the additional amount as per Sales Circular no.U-11 of 2012 and he was liable to pay the same i.e. Rs.68096/- for getting the connection released. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. However, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas of the OP and allowed the complaint by awarding the aforesaid relief to the Complainant.  

4.      Against the impugned Order, the OPs/appellant has filed the present appeal before us reiterating their same pleas as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent in person and have also gone through the record, on perusal whereof the following material facts stand undisputedly established. The notice for the first time demanding the payment of additional amount was issued by the OPs on 07.05.2013 and the complainant made the payment on 10.05.2013. Much before the issuance of the notice, the complainant had already applied for the tubewell connection by depositing the requisite fee alongwith the material cost estimate i.e. on 03.07.2009 and 20.06.2011. He has produced the original receipts of the payment made by him. These amounts were strictly in accordance with the demand made by the OPs according to the Sales Circulars and rules inforce at that time. If the OPs had revised their rates subsequently by issuing fresh sale circular in 2013, the complainant was not liable to pay any additional amount. Therefore, the demand of the OP was not legally justified. The learned District Forum has rightly relied upon the binding precedent- Uttari Harayna Bijli Vitran  Nigam Ltd. and Anr. Versus Shyam Lal III(2007) CPJ 87 (NC), Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mukandi Lal III (2007) CPJ 51 NC and Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another versus Jai Singh Gar 2009 (1) CLT page 710. We entirely agree with the view taken by the learned  District Forum and uphold the well reasoned and detailed Order. Consequently the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 

5.      Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.

 

July 13th,  2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

R.K.