SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER vs PRATAP SINGH

The complainant in Revision Petition No.94 of 2016 namely Shri Partap Singh got a tube-well connection installed from the petitioner Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., paying a sum of Rs.36,350/- on 09.11.2011, pursuant to a demand notice issued from the service provider. He received a notice dated 18.6.2013, demanding an additional amount of Rs.65,650/- based upon a circular bearing No.10/2011. Being aggrieved he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Nigam on the ground that in view of a new Circular dated 16.5.2011, the customers were asked to give options under which they wanted the tube-well connection and since the complainant had opted for option ''C'', a revised estimate was prepared and the demand notice based upon the revised estimate was issued to the complainant. It was also stated in the reply that the option ''C'' was exercised by the complainant on 26.11.2011 and the notice demanding Rs.36,350/- was wrongly issued to me on 04.11.2011.

The District Forum vide 09.6.2014, directed the petitioner not to recover the aforesaid amount of Rs.65,650/- from the complainant and declared the demand notice to be illegal, null and void. The complainant was also awarded cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2,000/-. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission. Being aggrieved, the petitioner Nigam is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

The complainant in Revision Petition No.95 of 2016 namely Rajbir Singh also got a tube-well connection installed in the same manner and he also received a demand notice from the petitioner Nigam demanding an additional amount of Rs.65,150/- on the basis of the above referred Circular No.10/2011. He also had allegedly opted for option ''C'', out of three options available under the above referred Circular. Being aggrieved, he also approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The complaint filed by him was resisted on the same ground on which the complained filed by Partap Singh was resisted. In his case also, the District Forum passed an identical order quashing the additional demand and awarding cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2,000/- to him. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission. Being aggrieved, the petitioner Nigam is before this Commission by way of a separate revision petition.

It is not in dispute that the complainants had applied for the tube-well connection much before the Circular No.10/2011 was issued by the Nigam. The contention of the complainants is that they having applied for the connection and having made the initial deposit much before the said circular came to be issued, they could not having been governed by the aforesaid circular.

It is an admitted position that the demand upon the complainants was raised by the petitioner Nigam after the above referred circular No. U-10/2011 had been issued. It is also not in dispute that the demand raised by the petitioner after issue of the above referred circular was duly paid by the complainants. The contention of the petitioner is that in terms of option ''C'' which the complainants had opted for, they were required to pay the cost of transformer as well as the cost of all the spans, the span being the distance from one pole and the other. This is also the case of the petitioner Nigam that the cost worked out under option ''C'' comes to much more than the amount deposited by the complainants and therefore, they were justified in raising the additional demand. In my view, the petitioner having raised a particular demand and that too after issue of the Circular on which reliance is being placed by it and the complainants having complied with the said demand, it is not open to the petitioner to raise an additional demand merely because the earlier demand was not correctly worked out by the concerned officer. It is quite possible that had the petitioner demanded a higher amount, in terms of option ''C'' exercised by the complainants, the complainants instead of paying the said higher amount, would have opted for option ''A'', under which much lesser amount would have been payable by them. The petitioner, in my view, cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own mistake and demand a higher amount from the complainants, when the option entailing payment of a lower amount was also available to them under the circular, and the possibility of the complainants having opted for option ''A'' requiring a lower payment instead of option ''C'', involving payment of a higher amount, cannot be ruled out.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no good reason to interfere with the concurrent view taken by the fora below. The revision petitions are therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.