Haryana

StateCommission

A/911/2018

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALJEET - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.NEGI

04 Jun 2024

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:23.07.2018

                Date of final hearing: 20.05.2024

                                                Date of pronouncement: 04.06.2024

 

First Appeal No.911 of 2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

1.      UHBVNL, City, Fazilpur, District Sonepat through its Executive Engineer.

2.      SDO, UHBVNL, Sub Division, Village Bhatgaon, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

.….Appellants.

 

Through Counsel Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate

 

Versus

 

Baljeet son of Sahab Dass, R/o Village Barwasni, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

….Respondent.

Through counsel Shri R.P. Verma, Advocate

 

CORAM:   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. B.S. Negi, counsel for the appellants.

                   Mr. R.P. Verma, counsel for respondent.

 

O R D E R

S. C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                   Delay of 84 days in filing of present appeal is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.                Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 17.04.2018 in Consumer Complaint No.70 of 2018, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (now ‘learned District Commission’), vide which complaint filed by the complainant-Shri Baljeet was allowed and opposite parties (‘OPs’) were directed as under:-

“…Thus, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to the respondents. Accordingly, we hereby direct the complainant to deposit Rs.70,000/- with the respondents within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order and after receiving the said amount from the complainant, the respondents shall release the tubewell electricity connection to the complainant within a period of 60 days under the scheme in which it was applied for. The respondents shall install the electricity meter, poles, wires, transformer and other equipment which are required for the purpose of tubewell electricity connection.

                   With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.”

 

2.                Brief facts of the complaint filed before learned District Commission are that in the year 2014, OPs launched a scheme under the name and style of “Tatkal Scheme” under which, the agriculturist were required to deposit the entire amount so estimated in this regard with the Nigam at once for all purposes. It was alleged that Shri Jasbir Punia, JE alongwith Rajesh contractor apprised the complainant about the said scheme and on their assurance, he deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- as security with Jasbir Punia, JE. The said JE, Jasbir Punia put three poles for releasing the connection to the complainant, but meanwhile some criminal cases were registered against JE, Jasbir Punia and Rajesh contractor. The complainant has visited the office of OP and requested to provide him the electricity tubewell connection under Tatkal Scheme as the complainant was ready to deposit Rs.70,000/- with the OPs, but of no use. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared before learned District Commission and filed their written statement and submitted therein that the complainant has deposited only an amount of Rs.4700/- with the OPs. He never deposited Rs.50,000/- as security. It was submitted that the tubewell electricity connection will be provided on seniority basis. The complainant did not complete required formalities of the OPs. It was further submitted that the complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the OPs. Finally, it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                After hearing the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint of complainant and issued directions as mentioned above in 2^nd para (supra).

5.                Aggrieved from the impugned order passed by learned District Commission, OPs-appellants have preferred the present appeal for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.04.2018 by accepting the present appeal.

6.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. B.S. Negi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.P. Verma, learned counsel for respondent. With their kind assistance, contents of the appeal have also been properly perused and examined.

7.                It is an admitted fact that in the year, 2014, the appellants (OPs) launched a scheme under the name & style “Tatkal Scheme” under which the agriculturist was required to deposit the entire amount so estimated in this regard with the Nigam at once for all purposes. As per respondent (complainant) one Jasbir Singh Punia, JE along with Rajesh, Contractor approached him about said scheme and on their assurance respondent (complainant) deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- as security with Jasbir Punia, JE. Further, said JE put three poles for releasing connection to the respondent (complainant). However, it is also an admitted fact that meanwhile, some criminal cases were registered against said Jasbir Punia, JE and Rajesh Contractor. As per the respondent (complainant), he visited the office of appellants (OPs) with the request to provide him electricity connection under Tatkal Scheme, but of no use, despite the fact that respondent (complainant) was ready to deposit Rs.70,000/- with the appellants (OPs). On the other hand, as per appellants (OPs), the respondent (complainant) has deposited only Rs.4700/- as security and he never deposited Rs.50,000/- with the appellants (OPs). As per them, electricity connection will be provided on seniority basis, but the respondent (complainant) did not complete the required formalities.

8.                In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that no item can be issued from the store of any other department until and unless some amount for the release of the item is deposited with the department. There is a procedure for issuance of any item and entry is also made for release of any item and name of the person is also entered in the record to whom the said item is issued. In the present case in hand, it is established as well as admitted by the appellants that the then JE namely Jasbir Punia put three poles for releasing connection to the respondent (complainant) and it is not possible that without depositing any amount with the UHBVNL, respondent (complainant) got installed three poles for the supply of electricity to his tubewell. Thus, the contention regarding seniority raised by learned counsel for appellants is answered accordingly.  However, it is also established that some criminal cases were registered against said Jasbir Punia, JE and Rajesh Contractor and electricity supply work of respondent (complainant) was not completed. Main issue involved in the present matter is regarding depositing an amount of Rs.50,000/- by the respondent (complainant) with the appellants (OPs). In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that perusal of Ex.C-12 of lower court record (statement of complainant dated 23.08.2015 before DSP, Sonepat) reveals that he has paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- as security to Jasbir Punia, JE and contractor Rajesh. Further, perusal of Ex.C-9 of lower court record (FIR it clearly reveals that name of respondent (complainant) was mentioned at Sr. No.32 and similarly, perusal of Ex.C-11 clearly reveals that name of respondent (complainant) was mentioned at Sr. No.12. Moreover, in the column of ACRS Erected, it is mentioned 3 no. pcc pole was erected. Thus, learned counsel for appellants failed to prove his contentions and deficiency in service on the part of appellants stands proved.

9.                In view of the above observations and discussion, learned District Commission rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. The impugned order passed by learned District Commission is well reasoned, based on facts and as per law, and therefore, there is no need to interfere with it. In view of this, present appeal is without any merit and thus, stands dismissed.

10.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

11.                Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

12.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 04^th June, 2024                                     S.C. Kaushik                                                                                                                        Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench

 R.K