Haryana

Karnal

CC/338/2021

Ved Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

Sohan Singh Sivia

17 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                      Complaint No. 338 of 2021

                                                      Date of instt.19.07.2021

                                                      Date of Decision:17.10.2023

Ved Parkash son of Shri Kanhaiya Lal, resident of village & P.O. Ballah Tehsil and District Karnal, now resident of 589, Sector-29, Faridabad, age 92 years. Aadhar card no.3966 5752 2855.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVN, Sub Division, Munak District Karnal.
2. S.E. UHBVN, Sector-12, Karnal.
3. XEN, UHBVN, Sector-12, Karnal.

…..Opposite Parties.

       

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

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

                    Shri Bhanu Partap Singh, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:                     

          

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is farmer by profession and is owner of land in village Ballah tehsil and District Karnal and having electricity Tubewell connection no.L33UA231172M since 1975. There was a separate/individual transformer of 25KVA had been installed in the fields of the complainant. Complainant is residing in Faridabad at above mentioned address since 1982 and is senior citizen aged about 93 years. Thereafter, OPs taking benefit of non-availability of complainant at village Ballah. OPs have given electricity connection wire to the other farmers from the electricity tubewell connection/transformer of the complainant and at present five connections are running presently at the spot, against the government guidelines. In fact as per the scheme/rules of Haryana Government there is separate electricity tubewell connection has been provided to each farmer. Due to the act of OP to give connection from already installed transformer, there is created a mess of electric wires, electric polls and low level of wires. Due to this act complainant suffered financial loss as unable to harvest his crop through combine and also unable to plant orchards and complainant is suffering loss day by day. It is further averred that son of complainant is retired bank as Chief Manager and now he wishes to undertake Dairy Farming but due to low level and numbers of wires existing at the spot, the son of the complainant is unable to do dairy farming work. On coming to know the said fact the complainant seek information from UHBVNL on 14.02.2013 and requested for removal of illegal connection and upgraded the transformer. Complainant requested the OPs time and again on dated 12.03.2015, 14.03.2016, 16.03.2018, 20.03.2019, 18.03.2020 and January, 2021 but no action initiated to solve the problem of complainant. Complainant have visited many times in the office and requested to concerned officials to solve his legal demand, but every time the authorities accept that this is mistake on the part of the UHBVNL, but not come forward to solve the complaint. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the OPs have installed the tubewell connection to the other consumer as per the instructions and sale circular no.U-10/2019 and there is no unauthorized connection at the site. It is further averred that the OPs have installed the tubewell connections erected electricity lines very tightly and at a sufficient distance and as such no loss is being caused to the complainant. Moreover, as per the sale circular of the Nigam, the OPs have to install the connection from the nearest transformer. In the land of the complainant, there is a transformer 63 KV which is under load and as such from that very transformer three connections to the nearby farmers have been released. As per the report of the field and technical staff of the OPs there is no illegality in releasing said connection. It is denied that a separate transformer of 25KVA has been installed for the transformer of the connection of complainant. Rather the fact is that there is transformer of 63KVA from where the electricity connection of the complainant alongwith two other consumers, namely Dharam Pal and Satpal are connected and at present the total load over said transfer is 40BHP hence the said transformer is still under load. The sketch plan of the site in question depicts the actual and factual position of the electricity line and transformer. It is further pleaded that the transformer in question is still under load and as per the instructions and guidelines of the Nigam, the OP can give another connection from that very transformer. There is no low level of wires. The wires are on the height and tight as prescribed under the Electricity Act. Since no illegal connection is running at the spot and as such there arises no question at all of removing the same as alleged by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Architect Certificate for dairy business purpose Ex.C1, photographs regarding five lines Ex.C2, photographs regarding proof of low level Ex.C3, photographs regarding five lines on different dates Ex.C4, copy of site plan 1985-86 Ex.C5, copy of site plan at fresh wires Ex.C6, copy of request letter to SDO Munak dated 14.02.2013 Ex.C7, copies of reminders dated 12.03.2015, 14.03.2016, 15.03.2018, 20.03.2019, 18.03.2020 Ex.C8 to Ex.C12, copy of notice dated 15.01.2021 Ex.C13, copy of electricity bill Ex.C14, copy of jamabandi Ex.C15, copy of sale circular no.U-67/2006 Ex.C16 and closed the evidence on 15.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Balraj Singh JE Ex.OP1/A, copy of site map Ex.OP1, copy of application written by Balraj JE to OP no.1 Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 05.06.2023 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 complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is owner of land in village Ballah tehsil and District Karnal and having electricity Tubewell connection since 1975. A separate/individual transformer of 25KVA had been installed in the fields of the complainant. OPs have given electricity connection to the other farmers from transformer of the complainant and at present five connections are running. Due to that, there is created a mess of electric wires, electric polls and low level of wires and complainant has suffered financial loss as unable to harvest his crop through combine. Complainant requested the OPs so many times in verbally as well as in written for removal of illegal connection but no action has been taken by the OP to solve the problem of the complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OPs have given the tubewell connection to the other consumer as per the instructions and sale circular no.U-10/2019 and there is no unauthorized connection at the site. In the land of the complainant, there is a transformer of 63 KVA not 25 KVA as alleged by the complainant, which is under load and thus three connections to the nearby farmers have been given. As per the report of the field and technical staff of the OPs, there is no illegality in releasing said connection. There is transformer of 63KVA from where the electricity connection of the complainant alongwith two other consumers namely Dhaam Pal and Satpal are connected and at present the total load over said transfer is 40BHP only hence the said transformer is still under load and as per the instructions and guidelines of the Nigam the OPs can give another connection from that very transformer. He further argued that there is no low level of wires. Since no illegal connection is running at the spot and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

10.           Admittedly, complainant is consumer of OPs and having a tubewell connection bearing no. no.L33UA231172M. It is also admitted that a 63 KVA transformer is installed at the site.

11.           Complainant has alleged that in the fields of complainant a separate/individual transformer of 25KVA had been installed by the OPs. Now five connections are running from the transformer of the complainant. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but he has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Complainant has relied upon the photographs Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and Photostat copy of the site plan Ex.C5 and Ex.C6, which are not proved as per law and same is not having any weightage. Rather, as per site plan, Ex.OP1, there are only three electricity connections one in name of Ved Parkash (complainant)-15BHP, second is in the name of Dharampal-12.5 BHP and third in the name of Satpal-12.5 BHP. From the said site plan, it has been proved that transformer in question is 63KVA not 25 KVA as alleged by the complainant.  It is not possible, if the transformer is only 25 KVA as alleged by the complainant, then how can the said transformer supply a load of 40BHP.

12.           It is also evident from the application Ex.OP2 that the site in question was inspected  on 28.8.2021 by Satbir Singh JE, Balraj Singh JE, Krishan Kumar JE and Pardeep Kumar LM and found that a 63KVA transformer was installed in the fields of the complainant from which three connection i.e. in the name of Ved Parkash (complainant)-15BHP (ii) Dharampal-12.5 BHP (iii) Satpal-12.5 BHP have been issued, the said connections are issued as per the Department’s instruction and  there was no illegal connection at the site. All the HT lines and LT lines found on the spot are at the proper height, proper distance and on the proper line. Furthermore, as per site plan

13.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. 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: 17.10.2023

                                                                President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)      (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                      Member                               Member