Haryana

StateCommission

A/704/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

AJIT SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

AMARDEEP HOODA

10 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      704 of 2015

Date of Institution:      27.08.2015

Date of Decision :       10.09.2015

 

1.     Sub Divisional Officer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Pillukhera, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind.

 

2.     Executive Engineer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Safidon  District Jind.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Ajit Singh s/o Sh. Surat Singh, Resident of Village Brah Kalan, Tehsil and District Jind.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri Amardeep Hooda, Advocate for appellants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated April 16^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Jind, in Complaint No.225 of 2013.

2.      Ajit Singh-Complainant-respondent, applied for electric connection for his tubewell to Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘UHBVNL’)-Opposite Parties, by depositing necessary charges as per the Sales Circular applicable at that time. Further demand being raised, the complainant deposited Rs.3500/- vide receipt No.28084 dated 17.11.2007 but still the electricity connection was not released. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply. It was stated that the complainant deposited security of Rs.1155/- on 22.12.2004 and Demand Notice No.104 dated 19.12.2005 was issued to the complainant. Since the complainant did not comply with the said demand notice, his application was cancelled. The complainant again applied for tubewell connection vide application No.28083 dated 17.11.2007 by depositing Rs.2450/-. Demand Notice No.976 dated 16.02.2009 was issued to the complainant for deposit of Rs.20,000/- but he did not deposit the same and for that reason, the connection could not be released.

4.      Undisputedly, the complainant had applied for tubewell connection on 22.12.2004. The opposite parties failed to show that any demand notice dated 19.12.2005 was received by the complainant and therefore, question of cancelling complainant’s application did not arise.  The District Forum has protected the interest of opposite parties-appellants by directing the complainant to deposit necessary charges before release of connection. Therefore, the opposite parties have rightly been issued direction vide impugned order under challenge in this appeal. No case for interference is made out.

5.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merits.

 

Announced 10.09.2015

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL