Haryana

StateCommission

A/533/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

KRISHNA DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

22 Jul 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.533 of  2015

Date of the Institution: 16.06. 2015

Date of Decision: 11.07.2016

 

SDO”OP” Sub Urban, UHBVNL, Jhajjar, Tehsil & District Jhajjar.

                                                                   .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

Smt.Krishna Devi wife of Nand Kishore, r/o village Babra, Tehsil & Disttrict Jhajjar.

 

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

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

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.B.D.Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Mr.Parmod Parmar, Advocate for the respondent.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                   It was alleged by complainant that she applied for HT connection for agriculture purposes vide application No.2414 dated 22.12.2009.  Vide demand notice No.584 dated 10.06.2011 appellant/Opposite party (in short O.P.) asked her to deposit Rs.20,000/- as consent money and Rs.600/- as inspection fee besides meter costs etc. she deposited Rs.3750 on 22.12.2009 and further deposited Rs.20,000/- on 17.05.2011. Rs.7,000/- were          also deposited for installation of span as asked vide memo No.2297 dated 23.12.2011. She completed all the formalities upto the month of February, 2012. Instead of releasing connection OP demanded Rs.66570/- vide memo No.2557 dated 05.07.2013 which was altogether wrong. She requested to release connection, but, to no avail.

2.                O.Ps. filed reply and alleged that release of tubewell electric connection depended upon terms and norms of the UHBVNL and guidelines of Government. As person who was asking for connection was to pay extra cost as per rules.  First demand notice for Rs.20,000/- was issued as per sales circular ( In short “SC”) No.77/2001 and subsequent notice was issued keeping in view SC No.25 of 2013. Vide SC No.U10/21 applicants were asked to opt for any of the scheme mentioned below:

          “A.     The old scheme of 4 or more connection per transformer                            where consumer pay 20,000/- & 7000/- per span.

          B.      Three connection per transformer where consumer pay                              30,000/- & 7,000/- per span.

          C.      Single connection per transformer where consumer meets                full cost of estimate including T/F in addition to cost of                            span i.e. 7000/- per span.

She did not deposit any amount despite notices issued as per SC No.25/2013. There was no deficiency in service on their part.

 Objections about maintainability, locus standi, accruing cause of action and jurisdiction of Forum etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.                After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar allowed the complaint vide order dated 30.01.2015  and directed as under:-

“Therefore , we declare the impugned notice No.2557 dated 05.07.2013 as illegal, null and void and direct the respondent  not to recover the amount of Rs.66,570/-  from the complainant and further direct the respondent to release the tubewell connection the complainant as per his seniority. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation expenses”

4.                         Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.-appellants have preferred this appeal. 

5.                         Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.                         Learned counsel for appellants vehemently argued that when complainant applied for connection, SC No.77/2001 was applicable and she was asked to deposit amount accordingly. Lateron circular No.25/2013 was issued and as per that circular she was asked to deposit Rs.66570/-.  When new sales circular has come into force before releasing connection, applicant is to deposit the amount accordingly.  Notice Ex.R9 was also sent to complainant about option of type of connection. Thereafter single estimate was prepared as mentioned in Ex.R8. She cannot escape from the payment of this amount and is liable to deposit the same. In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in SDO UHBVNL Vs. Bhagwan Singh Revision Petition No.4195 of 2011 decided on 27.02.2015  and  opinion of this Commission expressed in Sub Divisional Officer (OP) etc. Vs.  Prem Kumar  FAP No.439 of 2015 decided on 17.02.2016.  

7.                          However, there is no dispute as far as opinion expressed by Hon’ble National Commission in SDO UHBVNL Vs. Bhagwan Singh (supra) is concerned, but the department cannot take any benefit from them because the   facts of this case are altogether different. Vide SC No.U-11/2011 dated 19.05.2011 applicant was asked to opt scheme for release of power connection to the tube-well under revised scheme.   As per O.P complainant opted for option No.1 under that policy and deposited the amount. In sales circular No.U-25/2013, it is specifically mentioned that if a person has deposited full amount of Rs.20,000/- + span charges after issuance of demand notice, connection shall be released as per old policy i.e. as per SC No.U-77/2001 of LT/HT as per the site condition. This circular clearly shows that connection is to be released as per circular of the year 2001. Complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- and other charges as mentioned above and OP/appellant has not denied the same. When she had already deposited amount, OP is not authorized to raise fresh demand as clearly mentioned in SC No.U-25/2013. Had she not deposited the amount before issuance of this circular then it could have been a different matter. As appellant/OP has failed to show that complainant opted for single connection it cannot raise this demand as per SC of the year 2013. The guidelines of SC of 2013 are  not attracted which are relied upon by the appellant. The judgment passed by the learned District Forum is well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

8.                          The statutory amount of Rs.1000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

July,11th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl. Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench