Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuh (Mewat).
Complaint No. : 17/2017.
Instituted on : 17.11.2017.
Decided on : 05.02.2019.
Shri Jumma son of Shri Gora, R/o Silkhoh, Tehsil Tawru District Nuh.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Divisional Manager, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Sohna.
- Sub-Divisional Manager, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Sohna
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
MS. URMIL BENIWAL, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the complaint that the complainant is a senior citizen person and he had deposited the security amount of Rs. 21205 on dated 12.12.2005 for taking Tubwell connection from opposite party no. 2. After elapsed of12 years the opposite party has failed to install the Tube-well connection in the premises of the complainant. The complainant has visited several times in the offices of the opposite party nos. 1 & 2 and the extra amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been spent of the complainant. The complainant has faced difficulties in his field work without tubewell connection. The complainant had taken the loan from the bank and deposit the said amount to opposite parties for tubewell connection. Hence, this complaint with prayer to direct the opposite parties to install the tubewell connection in the field of the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account harassment and Rs. 20,000/- on account of litigation charges.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to opposite parties. Opposite Parties in their reply has submitted that the complainant not deposited the required amount of estimate. The answering opposite parties served the demand notice to the complainant and asked to him to deposit the required amount of estimate, but the complainant did not do so and as such the answering opposite parties cancelled the case file of the complainant, so the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The efficacious remedy is available to the complainant to move fresh application for electric connection in the office of the opposite parties. Hence, complainant is not entitled for any claim and complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Mark-A to Mark-C and closed his evidence. Opposite party has failed to file the evidence and evidence on behalf of opposite party closed by court order.
4. Arguments heard and filed perused.
5. Facts of the case reveals that the stand taken by the opposite party does not find support by any documentary evidence. The opposite parties fail to place any copy of the alleged demand notice allegedely by issued by them to the complainant. As such this plea of the opposite parties is unteable and same is hereby negated. Hence, this complaint succeeds and opposite parties are directed to issue a demand notice within a period of his ten days from the date of receipt of this order and thereafter, when the complainant receives the demand notice he shall deposit the amount mentioned in the demand notice and after the receipt of estimate amount, the opposite parties shall release a connection to the complainant within a period of two months. Alternatively, the complainant fails to deposit the estimated money within a stipulate period, his complaint shall be presumed to be dismissed and he shall then be entitle for a refund of Rs. 21205/- only. The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
6. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced on: 05.02.2019 (Rajbir Singh Dahiya)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Nuh (Mewat).
(Urmil Beniwal)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Nuh (Mewat).
