STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/6/A/398/2018 KANSHI RAM PRESENT ADDRESS - VPO BIANA, TEHSIL INDRI, DISTT. KARNAL. ,HARYANA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus UHBVNL PRESENT ADDRESS - KARNAL. ,HARYANA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

MR. S . P . SOOD , JUDICIAL MEMBER MR. SURESH CHANDER KAUSHIK , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

MS. VANSHIKA PROXY COUNSEL FOR MR. RAVI KANT, COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MR. SIKANDER BAKSHI, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

DATED: 19/02/2026

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Date of Institution: 20.03.2018 Date of final hearing: 19.02.2026 Date of Order: 19.02.2026 First Appeal No.398 of 2018 IN THE MATTER OF:-

Kanshi Ram S/o Sadhu Ram, R/o VPO Biana, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

...Appellant Versus

1. Executive Engineer, S/U Division No.1, UHBVNL, Karnal.

2. S.D.O. Sub-Division, UHBVNL, Garhi Birbal.

…..Respondents CORAM: SH. S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER SH. S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER Present:- Ms. Vanshika proxy counsel for Mr. Ravi Kant, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Sikander Bakshi, counsel for the respondents.

ORDER

PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

Challenge in this appeal has been invited to the legality of order dated

08.02.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint No. 181 of 2016, vide which complainant’s complaint has been dismissed.

2. Factual matrix: Complainant took tubewell connection from OPs bearing connection No. B2-0313, which was changed to AP25-0313 and in the end of year 2015 again changed to GA13-1230. The transformer of his tubewell connection was stolen in 2011 and information of the theft was registered in the office of SDO, UHBVN Garhi Birbal at Sr. No.20 dated 21.11.2011. SDO Garhi Birbal in the year of 2012 served a notice upon complainant and asked him to deposit 20% of the total amount of cost of transformer. Complainant visited the office of OP and asked them about the government scheme, which he heard from many people in village and free new transformer is re-placed by government, if there is theft of tubewell transformer. But no reply was given and the department was adamant on depositing the 20% amount from the complainant. In the notification of year 2010 Government made it clear that it was responsibility of contractor to install a new transformer in case of theft of transformer. Son of complainant also visited the office of OPs, so many times and asked about the circular prior to 20/2012 but he was also not guided properly. OP No.2 was adamant on depositing 20% of the total amount of cost of transformer, whereas complainant was asking that Government mentioned in circular prior to circular U-20/2012 that replacement of theft transformer will be kept for free. On 07.04.2016 complainant deposited Rs.11,114/- so demanded by OP No.2. OP No.2 again asked the complainant to deposit 30% more as per new notification. On asking of OP No.2 complainant deposited Rs.16,671/- on 06.05.2016 and OPs installed a new transformer in the fields of complainant on 19.05.2016. Complainant has paid the bill of this connection whereas no electricity is used by him. As per plea, there was deficiency in service on part of OPs.

3. Upon notice, OPs in their written statement have submitted that the schemes of the Nigam changes from time to time and as such under said changes and as per sales circular No.U-20/2012 of the Nigam the demand of 20% of the total cost of the transformer was made, which was not deposited by complainant within stipulated period mentioned in the notice. As per the subsequent sales circular of the Nigam another notice for demand of 10% more amount was sent to the complainant vide memo No.3193 dated 20.12.2013 but that amount too has not been deposited till the year 2015. As per the latest circular of the Nigam, complainant has to deposit 50% cost of the transformer and as the complainant has not deposited the required/demanded mon