HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. RAVINDER VIR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two appeals No.480 of 1997, H. S. E. B. V/s. Ravinder Vir Sharma and Cross Appeal No.457 of 1997, Ravinder Vir Sharma V/s. H. S. E. B. , as both the appeals arise out of the same order dated 19th August, 1997, passed by District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon, whereby complaint of consumer Ravinder Vir Sharma, who is an Ex-Serviceman has been allowed, by directing the H. S. E. B. to grant the tubewell connection to the complainant immediately.

(2.) According to the complainant he was already having an old tube well connection in his land, but the State of Haryana had acquired some portion of the land for digging canal through and through his land; thereby divided the same into two parts. Since no water course crossing could be provided due to high Tibba and the depth of the G. W. S. canal, the Land Acquisition Officer provided compensation for the second tube well to be installed in the isolated portion of the complainant's land and recommended to the H. S. E. B. for providing tube well connection on priority basis. Despite all this, H. S. E. B. has failed to release the necessary tube well connection. In their reply, the H. S. E. B. took a preliminary objection that the matter was already under consideration of the H. S. E. B. , but no categorical stand was taken so far as the merits of the case are concerned. The learned District Consumer Forum after examining the matter in detail and considering the evidence produced by the parties found merit in the complaint and allowed the same by ordering the H. S. E. B. to grant tube well connection forthwith. However, while considering the grant of compensation for the loss to the crops suffered by the complainant on account of lack of irrigation facilities, the learned District Forum observed that as the matter was already under examination of H. S. E. B. , no further relief was necessary.

(3.) In the appeal filed by the H. S. E. B. the learned Law Officer reiterated their stand taken before the District Forum by contending, that the complainant was not the only person to whom the connection was to be released and there were number of other applicants, who were also to be accommodated. On the other hand, complainant Ravinder Vir Sharma-appellant in cross appeal has vigorously pleaded, that his case was peculiar in the sense that some of his land had been acquired by taking the canal through and through and thereby the land stood bisected; hence a separate tube well connection had rightly been recommended by the Land Acquisition Authorities. No such case of an Ex-Serviceman of identical type was before the H. S. E. B. which could be given priority over the complainant in the matter of release of tube well connection. After hearing the parties we do not agree with the learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of the H. S. E. B. , as the factual position stated by the complainant appearing in person has not been refuted by the H. S. E. B. by any documentary evidence. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal filed by the H. S. E. B. Resultantly, the H. S. E. B. is directed to release the tube well connection to the complainant within one month of the receipt of the order.4. Since the complainant had already spent the amount received by him by way of compensation from the Land Acquisition Department for constructing tube well, which has been lying idle in the absence of the electricity connection, he is certainly entitled to compensation therefor. He has given details of the loss assessment in para 8 of the cross appeal based of the reports of the Tehsildar as well as from the office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Gurgaon, disclosing the District average yield per hectare. As the loss to the crop started from March, 1993 the digging of the canal, the area of bifurcated unbridgeable chahi land measuring 12 kanals 6 marlas (I acres) could not yield any crop. Therefore, the total loss suffered by him amounting to Rs.1,28,170/- and adding to which a sum of Rs.4 lacs-loss on account of reduced value of chahi land, Rs. one lac for mental agony and litigation expenses etc. , the total loss claim amounted to Rs.6,28,170/-with 24% interest. As the complainant has established deficiency in service and callousness on the part of H. S. E. B. in not releasing the connection of the tubewell, he is certainly entitled to compensation and it would be in the fitness of things and would adequately meet the ends of justice, if the total amount assessed for the loss of crop i. e. Rs.1,28,170/- only along with a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses etc. suffered by the complainant is awarded to him. We order accordingly. Thus the cross appeal filed by the complainant stands allowed in the above terms.