Haryana

StateCommission

A/724/2015

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARAT SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

N.K.BAJAJ

12 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      724 of 2015

Date of Institution:      03.09.2015

Date of Decision :      12.05.2016

 

1.      Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through Sub Divisional Officer (Op.), Sub Division Sub Urban, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Fatehabad.

 

2.      Sub Divisional Officer (Op.), Sub Division Sub Urban, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Fatehabad, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

Bharat Singh s/o Sh. Ganga Ram, Resident of Village Daulatpur, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.                               

 

Present:               Shri Vineet Sehgal, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Radhe Shyam, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Bharat Singh-complainant/respondent, obtained electric connection of his tubewell, bearing account No.AD-54/3694, from Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘DHBVNL’)-Opposite Parties/appellants. By filing affidavit dated April 17^th, 2007 (Exhibit R-2), he requested the DHBVNL to disconnect the connection. The connection was disconnected on April 27^th, 2007, as is apparent from the affidavit (Exhibit R-1) filed by Shri S.K. Nain, Sub Divisional Officer (Op), Sub Division, Sub Urban, DHBVNL, Fatehabad.

2.      The respondent approached the DHBVNL to restore the connection but the DHBVNL did not restore it. He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (for short ‘the District Forum’).

3.      Vide order dated May 12^th, 2015, the District Forum directed the DHBVNL to release the connection to the respondent on depositing the expenses as per rules.  Hence appeal.

4.      During the execution proceedings before the District Forum, the DHBVNL released the connection to the respondent after charging usual expenses, a fact which has not been refuted by the learned counsel for the DHBVNL.

5.      In view of the above, the appeal has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.

 

Announced: 12.05.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL