UHBVNL, "SDO" MURTHAL Vs. ARJAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 06.01.2017, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 817/2016, "Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited v. Arjan Dass & Anr.", vide which, while dismissing the appeals, the order dated 08.08.2016, passed by the District Forum Sonepat in consumer complaint No. 325/2015, filed by the present respondent No. 1 Arjan Das, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) The facts of the case are that Arjan Das complainant/respondent No. 1 who is an agriculturist, stated in his consumer complaint that he approached the Opposite Parties (OPs) for release of electricity connection for running tube-well under their Self-execution Scheme. The complainant is stated to have paid 70,000/- to opposite party-2 (OP-2) Rajkumar, Assistant Lineman (ALM) of respondent No. 1 and OP-3 Rajesh, Contractor and they assured him that the connection will be released. The said amount was paid to OP-2 & 3 in the presence of other farmers and villagers, but they did not provide him any receipt for the same. However, OP-2 & 3 installed poles, wires, transformers and supplied electricity to the tube-well of the complainant, but they did not install any electric meter, neither they gave any account number to the complainant. The complainant approached the OPs for regularisation of the connection, but to no avail. Alleging that the OPs had threatened to disconnect the electricity supply, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking regularisation of his electricity connection.

(3.) In the reply filed by OP-1 UHBVNL & OP-2 Raj Kumar (ALM), it was stated that the complainant had not deposited any amount with them and hence, the question of providing any receipt did not arise at all. The OPs also stated that the complainant never moved an application for electricity connection, nor deposited the security amount for the same. The OP-3, Rajesh was not the authorised contractor of the respondent corporation and hence, was not competent to install any poles, wires, transformers, etc. and to provide the electric supply. Since the connection given to the complainant was illegal, there was no question of installing any electricity meter etc. The OP-1 & 2 requested that the consumer complaint should be dismissed.