State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Surajmal vs Dhbvnl on 19 February, 2018
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No : 553 of 2017 Date of Institution: 09.05.2017 Date of Decision : 19.02.2018 Surajmal s/o Sh. Lehri, Resident of Village Buroli, Tehsil and District Rewari. Appellant-Complainant Versus 1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Buroli, Tehsil and District Rewari, through Sub Divisional Officer. 2. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Rewari through Executive Engineer. 3. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Rewari through Superintending Engineer. Respondents-Opposite Parties CORAM: Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Argued by: Ms. Anu Garg, Advocate for appellant. Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This complainant's appeal is directed against the order dated March 28th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short 'the District Forum').
2. Surajmal - complainant (appellant herein) Resident of Village Buroli, District Rewari got installed a tubewell in the agricultural land owned by him within the revenue estate of Village Buroli. He applied for providing an electricity connection for running his tubewell before the Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL) - Opposite Parties/respondents on May 13th, 2011. An amount of Rs.23,000/- was deposited as security on May 13th, 2013. Vide Demand Notice dated September 16th, 2013 the complainant was required to deposit an amount of Rs.1,20,204/- and cost of transformer. The complainant deposited the required amount of Rs.34,185/- as well as an amount of Rs.90,000/-. The amount of Rs.90,000/- was deposited for payment to the contractor of the department. The opposite parties installed electricity poles but did not install transformer. The complainant requested the opposite parties time and again vide letter dated March 25th, 2014; April 16th, 2014 and April 24th, 2014 for providing electricity connection whereupon the opposite parties wrote letters on dated October 23rd, 2013, March 31st, 2014; April 16th, 2014; April 29th, 2014; May 27th, 2014; June 16th, 2014; July 11th, 2014 and August 01st, 2014. The opposite parties did not provide the electricity connection to the complainant and the complainant had to face un-necessary harassment by hiring tubewells of other persons for irrigation of his land.
3. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to provide electricity connection to the complainant for running his tubewell and to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment and cost of litigation.
4. The opposite parties-respondents in their written version have taken plea that the complainant applied for providing electricity connection for running his tubewell on May 13th, 2011 and deposited an amount of Rs.23,000/- on the same date. Thereafter, also as per demand the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- more as service connection charges, process charges and meter security charges. After receiving demand notice dated September 16th, 2013, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,20,204/- as estimate cost and an amount of Rs.480/- more. Thereafter, the complainant opted electricity connection under Self Execution Scheme which was to be completed by a contractor of the DHBVNL. The complainant purchased three electricity poles and other equipments vide bill dated August 07th, 2014. It is admitted fact that the electricity poles were installed but transformer could not be installed as the persons having agricultural land nearby the land of the complainant caused hindrance. In this regard, letters were also written on May 27th, 2014 and July 11th, 2014 by the opposite parties requesting Police help. It is denied that any monetary loss has been caused to the complainant due to fault of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to receive any amount as prayed in the complaint and prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.
5. Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.
6. After hearing arguments vide impugned order dated March 28th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed. Instead of giving direction to the opposite parties to provide electricity connection, the learned District Forum directed the opposite parties to refund the amount already deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties regarding providing electricity connection with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of respective deposits and to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony.
7. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated March 28th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant-complainant has filed the instant First Appeal No.553 of 2017 with a prayer to modify the impugned order and to grant relief to the complainant as prayed in the complaint.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
9. During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that the complainant applied for providing an electricity connection for running his tubewell installed in the agricultural land owned by him situated within the revenue estate of Village Buroli. It is also admitted fact that the complainant deposited the security amount, cost of the electricity poles and transformer etc as detailed in the complaint and earlier part of this order. In fact, the complainant has completed all necessary formalities and lateron he requested for providing electricity connection under Self Service Scheme also and he made necessary payments in this regard also. In this way despite completing all necessary formalities as and when needed, the opposite parties could not provide electricity connection to the complainant. In the written version the opposite parties have taken plea that the owners of the agricultural land situated near agricultural land of the complainant caused hindrance and created un-necessary problem at the time of providing electricity connection. It is also admitted fact that three electricity poles regarding which payment was already made by the complainant have already been installed but the electricity transformer could not be installed and the electricity connection could not be made functional. My attention was drawn towards the letters Exhibits C-17 to C-20 written by AGM "OP" Sub Division, DHBVNL to Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station, Khol and Superintendent of Police, Rewari on 27.05.2014, 16.06.2014, 11.07.2014 and 01.08.2014. In these letters, the opposite parties requested for Police help for providing electricity connection mentioning that some bad elements created obstacles and problems and electricity connection could not be provided to the complainant. In my view, when the complainant got installed poles and transformer at his own expenses, it was the duty of the opposite parties to make necessary arrangements and to seek police help. The opposite parties did not place on the file any such document to show that the local Police had taken any action against the wrong doers who caused un-necessary problems at the time of providing electricity connection. Anyhow, the complainant cannot be blamed for it. Only the opposite parties or the Police Department or the State Government can be blamed for this act of helplessness. Anyhow the root cause of this problem is not mentioned in the above mentioned letters that due to what reason the other persons were opposing providing electricity connection to the complainant. Information was sought under Right to Information Act also which was provided vide letter Exhibit C-21 showing that how many electricity connections have been provided within the area of Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Office, Baroli.
10. In fact, the learned District Forum has declined request of the complainant to give direction to the opposite parties to provide electricity connection on the basis of a letter dated 30.09.2011 mentioning that no new tubewell connection can be given in the whole block of District Rewari as notified by the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) under Environment Protection Act, 1986 with prior permission of the Ground Water Cell in order to control and regulate the ground water under the Act. The above mentioned letter is stated to have been shown at the time of arguments and the same was neither tendered in evidence nor placed on the file. Anyhow, on this basis also I feel it was not justified for the opposite parties to decline electricity connection to the complainant in view of a letter dated 12.07.2017 issued by Assistant Geologist Ground Water Cell, Narnaul vide Endst.no.1439 to the Deputy Commissioner, Rewari mentioning that Village Buroli falls in block Dahina which is not on notified list prepared by Central Ground Water Authority, New Delhi for ground water regulation and management. It is also mentioned in this letter that there is no restriction for installation of a tubewell or to provide electricity connection in the area of Dahina block. It is evident from the Sales Circular No.D-8/2017 issued by Chief Engineer (Commercial), DHBVN, Hisar also that no area of Dahina block falls under the notified area.
11. Keeping in mind all these circumstances, I feel the learned District Forum should not have declined the prayer of the complainant to provide an electricity connection for running his tubewell. As a result as per discussion above in detail, it is held that the impinged order dated March 28th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated March 28th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is accordingly allowed.
12. The opposite parties are directed to provide electricity connection to the complainant for running his tubewell as prayed in the complaint at the earliest positively within three months from the date of order and also to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony as the complainant could not avail the facility of running his tubewell due to non-providing his electricity connection for more than a period of seven years. Cost of the litigation to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant is quantified as Rs.11,000/-. In case the electricity connection is not provided within a period of three months from the date of order, the opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the complainant till the electricity connection is provided.
Announced:
19.02.2018 (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member CL