Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal No. 1637 of 2002

1- Secretary, UPSEB, (now U.P. Power

    Corporation Ltd.), Lucknow.

2- Superintending Engineer, UPSEB

    UPSEB, (now U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.),

    South, Civil Lines, Muzaffarnagar.

3- Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution

    Div-II, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Shamli,

    Distt., Muzaffarnagar.

4- Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Distt. Sub

    Division-III, Budhana, Distt. Muzaffarnagar.

5- Junior Engineer, Sub Station Budhana,

    Distt. Muzaffarnagar.

6- Lineman, Suhsana Feeder, Sub Station Budhana,

    Distt. Muzaffarnagar.

7- Petrolman, Suhsana Feeder, Sub Station Budhana,

    Distt. Muzaffarnagar.                                     …Appellants.

Versus

Gurudutt Sharma s/o Ram Charan,

R/o Bhagat Singh Marg, Behind the residence of

S.D.M., New Tehsil Colony, Sudhana, Distt.

Muzaffarnagar.                                                .…Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Isar Husain, Advocate for the appellants.

Sri Rajesh Chaddha, Advocate for the respondent.

Date 03.08.2021

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Rajendra  Singh,  Member- This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 11.6.2002 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Saharanpur in complaint case no.71 of 1995.

(2)

          The grounds of the appeal are that, that a complaint has been filed with the allegations that the complainant is ex-serviceman and he has entered into an agreement for private tube-well  and supply to this tube-sell was from independent transformer of 25 KVA. The complainant has also alleged that some farmers such as Hamid Hasand, Anwar Hasa, Jamaluddin, Ajjo, Aziz, Rangarh and Sukhveer Saini’s transformer was burnt and they were given connection from this transformer, so heavy load was caused upon the complainant’s transformer and ultimately this transformer also burnt. The appellants no.5, 6 and 7 did not prepare the indent though the complainant contacted several times to the office of the appellants at Muzaffarnagar. After that the complainant contacted the Superintendent Engineer and informed him about the facts. After this on 1.11.1993, indent was prepared for burnt transformer and the same has been given to the complainant admittedly by hand without inspection of the site. The complainant submitted the indent in the office of the appellant no.3 but he has been told that the indent was incorrect. The allegation against O.P. Sharma, Clerk has been denied by the appellant. No such assurance about the allotment of the transformer has been given by O.P. Sharma. As per the complainant himself some other persons have stolen the machinery of the complainant and damaged the premises and garden of 21 Bighas and the complainant  has suffered loss due to the above. The transformer of the complainant was never burnt and needed no replacement and no disconnection ever made by the appellants and upon information the indent has been cancelled as prepared admittedly on the basis of oral statement of the complainant.

(3)

Dues of electricity on the complainant can not be quashed as the supply to the complainant is still continuing even till today but the complainant on his own fault has failed to consume the electricity as stated. No copy of FIR or any information against the perso