SDO, UTTRI HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM Vs. BIKRAM SINGH
LAWS(PUNCDRC)-2014-2-3
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on February 19,2014

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.M. Bedi, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated November 28th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (for short District Forum), Kaithal, whereby the opposite parties (appellants herein) were directed to shift the H pole from middle portion of complainant's (respondent herein) field to appropriate place in the same field. Respondent was also awarded compensation of Rs. 2200 on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation. Bikram Singh -respondent had submitted an application to the appellant -opposite party No. 1 for shifting of H pole from his field to an appropriate place for which he had deposited Rs. 30,552, that is, the estimated cost of shifting on December 18th, 2009. However, the pole was not shifted due to the reason that Mr. Madan Gopal, S.D.O. Guhla had made statement on April 30th, 2010, in a Civil Suit titled as "Jasbir Singh v. Bikram Singh etc" that there was no proposal to change the pole.
(2.) IN appeal before this Commission learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that as per the new scheme of the Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (for short 'UHBVN')/the transformers for each connection were to be installed in the fields of other owners, around the field of respondent -complainant and for that reason High Tension (HT) line was being installed. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is not tenable. Since the pole to be shifted by the respondent stood in the middle of the field, so he had made a limited prayer to shift the H pole to some appropriate place in the same field. The plea of the appellants that in a civil suit filed by one Jasbir Singh, who was co -sharer, not to change the line, has no applicability as the respondent in this case has not sought the shifting of line. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that direction has only been issued to the appellants to shift the H pole from the middle of respondent's field to some appropriate place in the same field. Such a shifting of the pole would in no way be a hindrance in the supply of electricity to the others consumers. The respondent has already deposited the shifting charges, the estimate of which was given by the appellants.
(3.) FOR the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Thus, no case for interference is made out. Hence, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. The statutory amount of Rs. 1100 deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent -complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.