Haryana

Karnal

CC/387/2021

Shamsher Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O.(OP) UHBVN Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Singh

23 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 387 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.06.08.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:23.01.2023

 

Shamsher Singh son of Shri Umed Singh, resident of village Amargarh, Tehsil Nilokhri, District Karnal, aged about 60 years (Aadhar no.2126 2109 4794)

       

               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

SDO (OP) UHBVN Ltd. Sub Division, Indri Tehsil Indtri, District Karnal.

 

                                                                …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Ajay Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri B.P.Singh, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that late Shri Umed Singh father of the complainant was having an AP Tubewell connection bearing account no.IA-27-1129P. The said connection was used by the complainant for agriculture purpose. The father of the complainant died on 13.02.2013 and after his death the complainant and his brother namely Sultan Singh have been using said connection and paying the electricity bills. Due to some financial problem in the family the complainant could not repay the electricity bill for a long period due to which the OP disconnected the said connection of the complainant, vide PDCO no.3/73 dated 30.05.2019 on the outstanding amount of Rs.34737/-. Thereafter, on 03.09.2019 the Haryana Government launched a scheme for the farmers vide which interest and surcharge levied on the outstanding amount was waived off. After this scheme the official of the OP visited the complainant and asked for depositing the principle amount only which was Rs.17011/- and assured that after the deposit of the said amount, the connection of the complainant will immediately be restored. As per the assurance of the OP, complainant deposited the said amount with the OP, vide receipt no.39 dated 30.11.2019. But after waiting sufficient time,  OP has not restored the electricity connection of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant moved an application dated 04.08.2020 to the OP and requested to restore the supply of his connection and that application was marked to the Field staff for report and the field staff visited the site and reported that the transformer of the tubwell of complainant still lying in his fields and no amount is due and outstanding against the complainant as he got waived the interest and surcharge on the amount due and deposited the amount. After that complainant visited the office of OP so many times and also moved several complaints through online for restoration of the supply of his connection, but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that as per sales circular as well as instructions of the Nigam, if any connection is PDCO by the Nigam and same is not restored by the consumer within a period of two years in AP category from the date of PDCO, then in that eventuality, the same would not be restored and if consumer applies for restoration of the same, then he has to complete the formalities just like a new connection. It is further pleaded that the bill in question was rightly issued to the complainant as per the electricity consumed by him and the reading shown by the meter of the complainant, hence the complainant is liable to pay the same. It is further pleaded that as per section 145 of the Electricity Act and also in view of the fact that the matter in controversy has already been decided by the Learned Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Sector-8, Kurukshetra, hence complaint deserves to be dismissed on this score. It is further pleaded that the official of the OP never gave any kind of assurance that his connection will be restored immediately after deposited of the money because as per sales instructions of the Nigam after deposit of amount the consumer has to apply for reconnection of his connection and also has to complete certain other formalities but in this case he failed to do so. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of Permanent/ Temporary Disconnection order Ex.C1, copy of bill receipt Ex.C2, copy of complaint to XEN Ex.C3, copy of complaint to SDO Ex.C4, copy of complaint online Ex.C5, copy of application to OP regarding restoration of tubewell connection Ex.C6, copy of complaint to SDO Ex.C7, copy of death certificate of Umed Singh Ex.C8, copy of Aadhar card of complainant Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 04.02.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Deepak Kumar C.C. Ex.OP1/A, copy of sales circular no.U-6/2004 Ex.OP1, copy of order of PDCO of tubewell connection Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 07.06.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that father of the complainant was having an AP Tubewell connection bearing account no.IA-27-1129P. The said connection was used by the complainant and his brother for agriculture purpose. The father of the complainant died on 13.02.2013. Due to some financial problem, the complainant could not pay the electricity bill for a long period due to which the OP disconnected the said connection of the complainant. On 03.09.2019 the Haryana Government launched a scheme for the farmers vide which interest and surcharge levied on the outstanding amount was waived off. Under this scheme complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.17011/- with the OP, but OP did not restore the electricity connection of the complainant and prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that as per sales circular as well as instructions of the Nigam, if any connection is PDCO by the Nigam and same is not restored by the consumer within a period of two years in AP category from the date of PDCO, in that eventuality, the same could not be restored and if consumer applies for restoration of the same, he has to complete the formalities just like a new connection but in this case complainant failed to do so and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, Haryana Government launched a scheme for the farmers vide which interest and surcharge levied on the outstanding amount was waived off. Under this scheme complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.17011/- with the OP, vide receipt Ex.C2 dated 30.11.2019.

11.           Complainant moved an application Ex.C4 to S.D.O UHBVN, Circle Indri with regard to reconnection of tubewell connection. In the said application OP made a report that due to non-payment of electricity bill the cable wire had been removed and transformer was remained as it was. It is further mentioned that as per scheme of Government of Haryana, complainant has deposited the bill. The total bill amount was of Rs.34,737/- and as per scheme of the Government of Haryana, complainant has deposited Rs.17011/-. Nothing remains due qua the complainant. Connection of the complainant had not been restored by the OP on the ground that as per sale instruction of the Nigam after depositing of amount consumer has to apply for re-connection and also have to complete other formalities. But complainant failed to do so.

12.           OP has failed to prove its version by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Complainant is an illiterate person and  farmer by profession. OP had assured the complainant that connection will be restored as soon as possible. OP had not intimated the complainant to fulfill the required formalities for getting the said connection. When the OP had received the bill amount, it was the duty of the OP to restore the connection of the complainant. Furthermore, OP did not intimate with regard to the formalities which were to be required for said connection. No notice with regard to complete the alleged formalities as ever served upon the complainant. It is also proved from the photographs Ex.C10 to Ex.C14, transformer and bore still exists at the spot. Complainant has suffering from financial loss without water as he is unable to cultivate his land properly. Hence the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service.

13.           In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to restore the tubewell connection of the complainant within 45 days from the date of order. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:23.01.2023

                                                                       

                                                        President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                      Member                        Member

 

Sushma

Stenographer