Haryana

StateCommission

A/508/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALWAN SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

N.P.S.KOHLI

29 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      508 of 2015

Date of Institution:      05.06.2015

Date of Decision :       29.10.2015

 

Sub Divisional Officer, Operations, Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Kathura, District Sonipat.

                             Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Balwan Singh s/o Sh. Ranpatt, Resident of Village Guhna, Tehsil and District Sonipat.  

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                                  

Present:              Shri N.P.S. Kohli, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Ravi Kant, Advocate for respondent.  

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Sub Divisional Officer, Operations, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘UHBVNL’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated February 2^nd, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.      Balwan Singh–Complainant/respondent, applied for electric connection of his tubewell vide application dated December 22^nd, 2008 by depositing Rs.550/-. Demand being raised, he further deposited Rs.20,000/- vide receipt Exhibit C-2 and M.T. Fee of Rs.3150/- vide receipt Exhibit C-3. The complainant got installed his tubewell but still the connection was not released. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.      The Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing reply. It was stated that the complainant being co-sharer in the land, did not submit the No Objection Certificate (NOC) and he also did not deposit the cost of the expenses of electricity line within the stipulated time, as per Sales Circular No.U-7/2011. Accordingly, complainant’s application was cancelled on April 10^th, 2012. Denying any kind of deficiency in service, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint directing the opposite party as under:-

“….we hereby direct the respondents to release the tubewell electricity connection to the complainant under the scheme in which he has applied the year 2008, within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order i.e. after expiry of the period for filing appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula. The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- for rendering deficient service, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.”

5.      It is not in dispute that the complainant had applied for tubewell connection on 22.12.2008 by depositing the security. It is also not in dispute that as per the demand raised by the UHBVNL, he also deposited Rs.20,000/- vide receipt Exhibit C-2 and Rs.3150/- vide receipt Exhibit C-3. There is nothing on the record to show that the complainant was given any estimate to deposit the expenses of the electric line, which was required to pay in view of Sales Circular No.U-7/2011. Therefore, the UHBVNL is directed to release connection to the complainant subject to deposit of the expenses by the complainant, that is, Rs.7,000/- per span, as per Sales Circular No.U-7/2011 for erecting the electric line.  

6.      The impugned order is modified in the manner indicate above and the appeal stands disposed of.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.2500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 29.10.2015

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL