BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.298 of 2019.
Date of institution: 16.09.2019.
Date of decision:15.06.2021.
Rana Sahab son of Sh. Amrit Lal, age 48 years, r/o Village Baata, Tehsil Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.
….Respondent.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
CORAM: HON’BLE PRESIDENT SH. MANJIT SINGH NARYAL.
HON’BLE MEMBER SH. RAJBIR SINGH.
HON’BLE MEMBER SMT. SUMAN RANA.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Karan Gaur, Advocate for the Op.
ORDER
MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the electricity tubewell connection bearing account No.X47BA040910 was released by the Op to the complainant in the year 2014 but the same has not been installed in the fields of the complainant till now. It is alleged that the complainant has been paying the bills regularly without installing the electricity tubewell connection in the fields of complainant. Due to the said reason, the crop of complaint was damaged. It is further alleged that the complainant has suffered the loss to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- per year since the year 2014 and he has total suffered the financial loss to the tune of Rs.18-20 lacss. The complainant requested the Op several times to release the tubewell electricity connection in the fields of the complainant but the Op did not redress the grievances of complainant. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Op and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached to this commission with clean hands and is guilty of suppression of true and material facts. As a matter of fact, as per official record pertaining to connection in dispute, the same was released/installed in the name of complainant under self finance scheme. The transformer and other material for installation of same at the site was got issued from store of NIgam as per requirement raised by the office of answering Op vide Store Requisition Form bearing No.10/7752. Thereafter, vide Service Connection Order bearing No.1316/45 dt. 18.04.2014 the transformer/tubewell connection of complainant was installed in his fields, accordingly, with date of connection as 23.05.2014. Since 23.05.2014 the complainant is using the aforesaid tubewell connection and the bills for consumption of electricity energy through connection in dispute are being rightly issued in the name of complainant being official consumer. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Op.
5. We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, according to the complainant, the electricity tubewell connection bearing account No.X47BA040910 was released by the Op to the complainant in the year 2014 but the same has not been installed in the fields of the complainant till now. The complainant contended that he has been paying the bills regularly without installing the electricity tubewell connection in the fields of complainant and due to the said reason, the crop of complaint was damaged. The grievance of the complainant is that he has suffered the loss to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- per year since the year 2014 and he has total suffered the financial loss to the tune of Rs.18-20 lacss.
7. On the other hand, the Op has taken the objection in the written statement that as per official record pertaining to connection in dispute, the same was released/installed in the name of complainant under self finance scheme. It is further stated that the transformer and other material for installation of same at the site was got issued from store of Ngam as per requirement raised by the office of Op vide Store Requisition Form bearing No.10/7752. Thereafter, vide Service Connection Order bearing No.1316/45 dt. 18.04.2014 the transformer/tubewell connection of complainant was installed in his fields, accordingly, with date of connection as 23.05.2014. Since 23.05.2014 the complainant is using the aforesaid tubewell connection and the bills for consumption of electricity energy through connection in dispute are being rightly issued in the name of complainant being official consumer.
8. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. On perusal of service connection order as per Ex.R1, it is clear that the S.C.O. was issued on 18.04.2014. It is further clear from Ex.R2 that the transformer was also issued to the complainant. Moreover, there is no signature of complainant on service connection order Ex.R1 and copy of Stores Requisition/Issue book Ex.R2. On the other hand, the complainant produced the copy of letter Annexure-C8 alongwith other correspondence rested on it from which it is clear that the S.D.O., UHBVN, Kalayat wrote letter bearing No.1064 dt. 04.06.2018 to the S.H.O., P.S. Kalayat for taking action and lodging FIR against Teja son of Faquir Chand, Shamu son of Dharma, Harvinder son of Faquir Chand, Deepak son of Ved Parkash, Chud Singh son of Umrav, residents of Bata. It is mentioned in the said letter that the Nigam/UHBVN have to install tubewell connection in the fields of complainant and when the employees of UHBVN always go to install the tubewell connection, the above-said persons do not install the tubewell connection to the employees of UHBVN and they are hindrance in the said tubewell connection. So, from the said letter and other correspondence attached with the said letter, it is clear that the Op did not install the tubewell connection in the fields of complainant.
9. By now, it is well settled that a statutory authority like UHBVNL was a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As a State, the Nigam was expected to discharge its statutory functions within a reasonable time having regard to the fact that it undertook an important public utility service. Its actions besides being governed by the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, must also fulfill the test of reasonableness as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Turning the case in hand, we find that the complainant applied for the tubewell connection way back in the year 2014 & since then till today, no steps have been shown to have taken by the opposite parties on the above application. The opposite parties were required to release the connection to the applicant after the application within a reasonable period, which may be considered between 2 to 6 months, which the opposite parties failed to do so.
10. Incoming to our conclusion, we are guided by case law settled in re : UHBVNL & others Vs Jai Singh Garg – 2009 ( 1) CLT-710 (SCDRC –UT-Chandigarh), HSEB Vs Prithi Singh, III ( 1993 ) CPJ page 270 ( NC ) , Bachan Singh Vs HSEB -CPC 1994 ( 1 ) page 671, PSEB Vs Balwander Singh-1997 (1) CPC page 68 , Dhana Ram Vs UHBVN-2002 (1) RCR page 34 (P & H ), HSEB vs Sunder Lal -1999 JRC page 103 (SCDRC Haryana).
11. After going through the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the Op to release the tubwell connection in favour of the complainant under the application no.14493/AP dated 04.03.2014. The Op is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) as mental and physical harassment and Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) as litigation expenses to the complainant. The Op is also warned that they should not indulge in such negligence in future, otherwise the Op can be put on heavy punitive damages or other punishment as mentioned in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Let the order be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 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 in open court:
Dt.:15.06.2021.
(Manjit Singh Naryal)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.
