BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.188/2016.
Date of instt.: 01.07.2016.
Date of Decision: 07.04.2017.
Balwant Singh aged about 70 years son of Sh. Labh Singh, resident of Village Kallar Majra, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Cheeka, Distt. Kaithal, through its S.D.O.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Cheeka, Distt. Kaithal, through its Executive Engineer.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Cheeka, Distt. Kaithal, through its Junior Engineer, Satyawan
- UHBVN through its Secretary, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Amarjeet Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is agriculturist by profession and is owner in possession of the agricultural land measuring 6 kanals 0 marla situated within the revenue estate of Village Kallar Majra, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal. It is alleged that in the fields of Sucha Singh, there is a transformer of 100 KVA installed in the name of one Paramjeet Singh son of Sucha Singh. It is further alleged that from the said transformer, some connections are released to different two persons including the complainant and due to said connections, the transformer is overloaded. It is further alleged that due to overload, the said transformer has been burnt so many times and the complainant is facing very hardship. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops several times to install a separate new transformer but the Ops did not do so. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the proposal for providing additional 63 KVA transformer to avoid overloading of 100 KVA transformer, SOP to Paramjit Singh r/o Village Kallar Majra has been sanctioned by SE ‘OP’ Circle Kaithal vide memo No.159/OCK/16/Guhla dt. 15.07.2016 and accordingly, the estimate has been sanctioned by XEN ‘OP’ UHBVN vide estimate No.GDE/73/2016/17 and it will be installed near about November-December, 2016. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Mark-CA to Mark-CI and closed evidence on 18.11.2016. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Mark-R1 to Mark-R5 and closed evidence on 20.01.2017.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant is an agriculturist. In the fields of Sucha Singh, there is a transformer of 100 KVA installed in the name of one Paramjeet Singh. From the said transformer, some connections were released to different persons including the complainant and due to said connections, the said transformer is overloaded. The complainant approached the Ops several times to install a separate new transformer but the Ops did not do so, so, he filed the present complaint. Whereas, the Ops have specifically mentioned in their reply that on 03.10.2016, the proposal for providing additional 63 KVA transformer to avoid overloading of 100 KVA transformer, SOP to Paramjit Singh r/o Village Kallar Majra has been sanctioned by SE ‘OP’ Circle Kaithal vide memo No.159/OCK/16/Guhla dt. 15.07.2016. The estimate has been sanctioned by XEN ‘OP’ UHBVN vide estimate No.GDE/73/2016/17 and the same will be installed near about in the month of November-December, 2016. At the time of arguments, ld. Counsel for the Ops stated that the separate transformer of 63 KVA has been installed during the pendency of complaint and ld. Counsel for the complainant also admitted the same. Moreover, this fact is admitted by the complainant in the application moved on 07.03.2017, however, the said application has been dismissed on 16.03.2017 being not pressed. So, in view of above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the grievances of complainant have already been redressed by the Ops and the present complaint has becomes infructuous. Hence, no action is required in the complaint.
6. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we dismiss the complaint being infructous. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.07.04.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
