S D O , Uhbvnl vs BHAGWAN SINGH

THIS Revision Petition, by the Petitioner, calls in question the correctness and legality of order dated 3.9.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (in short, "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 1085 of 2011 S.D.O. Sub -Urban vs. Bhagwan Singh. By the said order, the State Commission dismissed the First Appeal in limini.

THE brief facts as set out in the main complaint before the District Forum are that the complainant applied for a tube -well connection and deposited the security amount of Rs. 3,750/ - on 16.12.2006, Rs. 20,000/ - on 19.12.2007 and Rs. 7,000/ - on 6.5.2008 and was assured by the Opposite Party that the tube - well connection will be given to him from the main line which is passing from his field. Thereafter, on 9.6.2010, after a gap of two years OP demanded a sum of Rs. 93,000/ -, aggrieved by which the complainant issued a Legal Notice on 10.7.2010. As the complainant did not deposit the remaining amount, the tube -well connection was not released to him and it is the case of the Opposite Party that under bifurcation scheme of the Nigam the domestic supply was bifurcated from the A.P. supply and both lines were separated and that 16 pillars have now to be installed. The District Forum observed that the tube -well connection ought to have been released within a reasonable period of time of one to three months from issue of demand notice and held the Opposite Party deficient in his services and allowed the complaint directing Opposite Party to release the electricity tube -well connection failing which the total deposit amount would be refunded with 9% interest.

AGGRIEVED by the said order of the District Forum, the Opposite Party preferred Appeal No. 1085 of 2011 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana which, dismissed the First Appeal in limini and the Petitioner has filed this Revision Petition on the ground that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the cost of raising of the poles is to be borne by the Petitioner, herein and therefore, demand of Rs. 93,000/ - has been made as 16 spans (pillars) are required to be installed. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner relied on the decision of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. and Ors., 2007 8 SCC 381 and submitted that the complainant herein is not a "consumer". But the facts in this case are different as the above citation refers to excess billing whereas in the present case, the Respondent/complainant has not even been issued the tube -well connection for which he has paid an amount of Rs. 3,750/ - on 16.12.2006, Rs. 20,000/ - on 19.12.2007 and Rs. 7,000/ - on 6.5.2008, subsequent to which after two years on 9.6.2010, revised demand of Rs. 93,000/ - was made. The complainant herein is a ''consumer'' and falls within the ambit of Section 2(i)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the connections are given as per waiting list and drew our attention to Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Sales Circular No. U -83/2007 (Annexure P -16) in which it is stated as follows: "UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM Sales Circular No. U -83/2007 From The Chief General Manager -Commercial, UHBVN, Panchkula. To All CEs/(OP)/SEs(OP) Xens/SDOs/Op, JEs -1, Incharge in UHBVN Memo No. Ch -93/TR -95 (90) AP/Loose Dated: 07.11.2007 Sub: Release of power connections to tubewells under AP category. Please refer to sales circular No. U -4/2007 dated 25.1.2007 issued vide this office memo No. Ch -14/TR -95(90)/LA/Vol.7 dated 25.1.2007 wherein it was desired to issue demand notices to all applicants under AP category who had applied for tube -well connection upto 31.3.2006 in all circles in UHBVN. Progress for release of tube -well connections has been further reviewed and it has been decided to issue demand notice to all AP category applicants who are registered upto 31.3.2007 in all the circles under UHBVN. The above instructions should be brought to the notice of all concerned for careful and meticulous compliance. Sd/ - General Manager/Comml., For CGM/Comml., UHBVN Panchkula"

WE observe from the record that as per the Nigam Policy domestic supply was bifurcated from the A.P. supply and both lines were separated for which 16 spans were required to be installed. A notice was also issued to the Respondent herein with respect to the demand of Rs. 93,000/ - and he admittedly was wait listed at Sl No. 91.

KEEPING in view the submissions of the Revision Petitioner herein and also the fact it was stated before us that the tube -well connections were being given in a serial wise order, we hold that there is no deficiency of service on behalf of the Revision Petitioner herein as it was a policy decision taken. Hence, we allow the Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order and direct the Respondent to deposit the amount of Rs. 93,000/ - with the Petitioner herein and on such deposit the Petitioner shall issue the tube -well connection within four weeks'' from the date of receipt of deposit. No order as to costs.