STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                         First Appeal No.1105 of 2018

                                                 Date of Institution: 19.09.2018

                                                        Date of Final Hearing: 12.09.2022

Date of pronouncement:14.12.2022

Bhim Singh, aged about 70 years adopted S/o Sh.Nihal Singh, R/o Narnaund, Tehsil Narnaund, Distt. Hisar.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub-Division, Narnaund, Distt. Hisar.
2. Executive Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Operation circle, Hansi, Distt. Hisar.
3. Superintending Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Hisar, Distt. Hisar.
4. Managing Director, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar, Distt. Hisar.

….Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

Present:-    Mr.Ajit Sihag, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.B.S.Negi, Advocate for the respondents.

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Briefly stated, facts as per the complaint goes like that  complainant got installed a electricity tubewell connection bearing meter NO.NN 53 2653 A(Old Account No.365) for irrigating his fields and has been paying the bills regularly.  The complainant had sown paddy 1121 crop in his 5 1/2   acres of agriculture land. However his land had a sole source of irrigation through electricity tubewell. For the paddy crop, the water was most essential thing but when the paddy crop was sown by the complainant for want continuous supply of electric energy and frequent fluctuations and low voltage, the electric motor installed there got burnt and due to this reason his paddy crop got perished. This is how complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.65000/- per acre.  Faced with this tuition, he requested the OPs to resume uninterrupted power supply to the tubewell connection, but to no avail. Finally, he sent a legal notice on 30.08.2017 to the OPs, but, to no avail. Thus there being clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, so this complaint.

2.      Upon notice, Opposite parties filed reply. It was submitted that on 11.08.2017, the tubewell connection of complainant was checked by members of team and during checking, it was found that the said tubewell has been shifted unauthorisedly  and length of the LT Line was beyond permissible limit of  LT Line for A.P Connections.  It was clear cut case of theft of energy.  After checking, the order of assessment was issued to him demanding Rs.30,000/- for theft of electricity. The compounding charges letter was issued to him vide memo dated 21.08.2017. FIR was also lodged on 21.08.2017.  The complainant filed civil suit as well as complaint against the OPs. Since the complainant had shifted the tubewell connection without any intimation or approval from the nigam, thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

3.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (Now In short “District Commission”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 14.08.2018.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      The argument has been advanced by Sh.Ajit Sihag, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.B.S.Negi, Advocate for the respondents.  With their kind assistance entire record of appeal including documentary evidence as well as whatever evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint has also been properly perused and examined.

6.      It is not disputed that the complainant was having tubewell connection in his field and used to pay the bill regularly.  Perusal of the ExR-2 shows that the premises was checked by members of a team of OPs department during which the complainant was found be comm