Haryana

StateCommission

A/1023/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DALBIR - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

12 Jul 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :   1023 of 2016

Date of Institution:     27.10.2016

Date of Decision :     12.07.2017

1.     Sub Divisional Officer (OP), Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Bahu, District Jhajjar.

2.     Executive Engineer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Beri, District Jhajjar. 

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Dalbir s/o Sh. Kanwal Singh, Resident of Village Sehlanga, Tehsil Matanhail, District Jhajjar.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

Argued by:          Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate on behalf of Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for appellants assisted by Shri Umed Singh, Sub Divisional Officer.

                             Shri Sanjay Panghal, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        The appellants-opposite parties have filed the present appeal against the order dated July 05^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Dalbir-complainant/respondent was allowed directing the opposite parties to install transformer as per scheme of the opposite parties at the time of deposit of amount of Rs.43,750/- by the complainant and to pay Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.

2.                The farmers in Haryana, who are living in their
Farmhouses (Dhanis), used to face it difficult to obtain domestic electric connections in their residential premises from rural domestic feeders. To remove this difficulty being faced, a scheme known as ‘PAT Scheme’ was launched by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN), as desired by the State Government, to provide  domestic connections with concessional rates. Few Sales Circulars were issued by the UHBVN in this regard and to make the terms and conditions more clear, Sales Circular No.U-11/2013 (Annexure A-1) was issued on April 09^th, 2013 by The Chief General Manager/Commercial, UHBVN, Panchkula.

3.                Under the above mentioned scheme, consumer was required to pay only 5% of the total estimated cost for installation of the electric poles, transformers etc.; 50% was to be paid by the UHBVN and the remaining 45% was to be shared equally by the State Government from Human Resources Development Fund (HRDF) and Members of Parliament Local Area Development (MPLAD) Funds.

4.                The complainant applied for domestic electric connection, under the above mentioned scheme, in his Farmhouse situated within the revenue estate of Village Sehlanga, Tehsil Matanhail, District Jhajjar, from rural domestic feeder. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.43,750/- towards 5% of the total estimated cost vide receipt dated September 02, 2013 (Exhibit P-4) with the opposite parties. Security amount was also deposited for obtaining electricity connection. Despite depositing the security amount as well as 5% of the total estimated cost, the UHBVN did not provide domestic electric connection to the complainant for about two years. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the UHBVNL to provide the domestic electric connection and to get installed a transformer and to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the amount of Rs.43,750/- already deposited from the date of deposit; an amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of unnecessary harassment/mental agony and an amount of Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

5.                The UHBVNL-Opposite Parties, in their written version have taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the District Forum, Jhajjar has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint and that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  The opposite parties have admitted that to remove the difficulty being faced by the farmers living in their Farmhouses (Dhanis), a scheme was launched by UHBVNL, as desired by the State Government to provide domestic electric connection in Farmhouses with concessional rates. However, later on the scheme was stopped by the State Government and due to this reason, the electricity connection to the premises of the complainant from the domestic feeder could not be raised. At the time of closure of the scheme, the complainant was asked to give his consent either to take back his money or to get his electricity connection in general scheme on payment of full cost of estimate. The complainant did not give his consent and is adamant to get installed a transformer under the old scheme, which is against the rules and regulations of the Nigam. In this way, electricity connection cannot be provided to the complainant from rural feeder. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

6.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint and granted relief as detailed in earlier part of this order.

7.                Counsel for the parties have been heard. File perused.  

8.                During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that the above mentioned scheme was launched by UHBVN as desired by the State Government to provide domestic electricity connection with concessional rates to the farmers living in their farmhouses and by issuance of Sales Circular No.U-11/2013 (Annexure A-1) was issued on April 09^th, 2013 by the Chief General Manager/Commercial, UHBVN, Panchkula.  It is evident from the Sales Circular No.U-11/2013 dated 9^th April, 2013 (Annexure A-1) that the complainant was required to deposit only 5% of the total estimated cost for installation of the electricity poles/transformer etc. for providing electricity connection in his farmhouse. 50% cost amount was to be paid by UHBVN and the remaining 45% was to be shares equally by the State Government from Human Resources Development Fund (HRDF) and Members of Parliament Local Area Development (MPLAD) Funds.

9.                During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type in this regard. The opposite parties have shown their helplessness to provide the domestic electricity connection under the above mentioned scheme because the above mentioned scheme was stopped vide Sales Circular No.06/2014 issued on 16^th January, 2014 by the Chief General Manager/Commercial, UHBVN, Panchkula. In the above mentioned Sales Circular it is mentioned that the above mentioned Dera Dhanis Scheme was suspended till further orders as the single phase transformers had not been received by that time. It is also admitted fact that the complainant deposited security amount as well as 5% of the total estimate cost amounting to Rs.43,750/- on 02^nd September, 2013 under account No.CO-91/425 vide receipt No.079344.

10.              The UHBVNL-Opposite Parties have assailed the order of the District Forum mainly on the ground that the electricity connection cannot be provided as the above mentioned scheme has already been suspended vide Sales Circular No.06/2014 issued on 16^th January, 2014. Providing of the domestic electricity connection from the rural feeder by installation of a transformer after issuance of Sales Circular No.06/2014 issued on 16^th January, 2014 was against rules. The only option with the complainant was to receive back the amount already deposited by him or to obtain domestic electricity connection under general scheme. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties argued that due to suspension of the scheme, 45% of the total estimated cost could not be deposited by the State Government under HRDF and MPLAD Funds. It is also argued that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties as State of Haryana has not been made party to the proceedings of this case.  

11.              This Commission is not much impressed with this contention of the learned counsel for the UHBVN. In fact, the Sales Circular No.U-11/2013 was issued by the Chief Engineer, Commercial, UHBVN, Panchkula, as per desire and consent of the State Government. Any such understanding was in between the UHBVN and the State Government. There was no agreement regarding payment of the above mentioned amount in between State Government and the complainant. In fact, the dispute regarding payment of 45% of the total estimated cost was in between the UHBVN and the State of Haryana. It was the responsibility of the UHBVN to receive or claim 45% of the total estimated cost from the State Government or the concerned department. As per the scheme mentioned in the Sales Circular No.U-11/2013, the UHBVN was required to provide domestic electric connection from the rural domestic feeder to the Farmhouse of the complainant as and when the security amount as well as 5% of the total estimated cost was deposited by the complainant. So, the State of Haryana is not a necessary party for the decision of this complaint.

12.              In view of the above, the District Forum has rightly held that the complainant is entitled for a domestic electricity connection and installation of a transformer in his farmhouse from the opposite parties as per scheme existing at the time of deposit of the amount by the complainant. Findings of the learned District Forum regarding awarding of an amount of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses are also justified.

13.              As per discussion above in detail, the order passed by the District Forum is perfectly valid and justified. Hence, the findings of the District Forum stand affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.

14.              The statutory amount of Rs.2750/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 12.07.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL