DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.424 OF 2013.
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 12.09.2013.
DATE OF ORDER: .25.07.2016
Rattan Singh son of Sh. Jug Lal, resident of village Tiwala, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
………Complainant.
Versus
- The Managing Director, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam having its Head office at Vidhut Nagar, Hisar.
- Executive Engineer, Sub-Urban, Sub-Division, DHBVNL Bhiwani.
- S.D.O. “OP” Sub-Division, DHBVNL Atela Kalan, Tehsil Ch. Dadri, District Bhiwani.
………Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,
BEFORE: Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Ms. Anamika, Gupta Member.
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Present: Shri Sikander Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Shri R.S. Sharma, Advocate for Opposite Parties.
ORDER:-
RAJESH JINDAL, President:
The brief facts of the case are that on 20.03.2012 he had filed a complaint bearing no. 154 of 2012 which was decided in favour of the complainant by the Hon’ble Forum on 14.08.2013. It is alleged that during the pendency of the complaint the respondent demanded Rs. 62,500/- for installation of tubewell connection in question to which the complainant protested but the OP no. 3 assured the complainant that in case if the complaint is decided in favour of the complainant then the amount deposited by the complainant would be adjusted in future bills for the consumption of electricity going to be consumed by the complainant at his tubewell and upon aforesaid assurance the complainant had deposited Rs. 62,500/- with the OP no. 3. It is alleged that after depositing the above said amount, the OP no. 3 again passed a message to the effect that another sale circular has been passed by department by virtue of which the persons who had applied for AP connections under sale circular no. D-80/2001 are to be provided with the connection by increasing a nominal charge for establishing transformer and for installing new line on the charges which are chargeable under D-80/2001 and further asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 12,500/- for the early release of AP connection in his favour. It is alleged that after depositing the above said amount the complainant was force to run from every post to pillar but all in vain. It is alleged that complainant was harassed at the hands of the respondents in both the ways as the order is also passed in his favour confirming the fact that the connection was to be released as per the terms and conditions of sale circular no. D-80/2001 and in the other way complainant was deposited as per the new sale circular. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and filed the complaint.
2. Opposite parties on appearance filed the contested written statement and took preliminary objections qua maintainability; estoppel; cause of action; jurisdiction; suppression of true and material facts and no deficiency. On merits, it is submitted that previously the complainant filed a consumer complaint for obtaining tubewell connection under AP category and same was allowed by the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 14.08.2013. It is submitted that during the pendency of that complaint complainant adopted new scheme launched by Nigam and respondents released tubewell connection to the complainant. It is submitted that the connection in question could not be released due to non-feasibility of line. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed against respondents with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-4 alongwith supporting affidavit. Written arguments on behalf of complainant filed.
4. In reply thereto, the Ops have placed on record supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned Counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant had filed a complaint No. 154 of 2012 before this learned District Forum. During the pendency of said complaint the complainant deposited Rs. 62,500/- with the OPs for the installation of tubewell connection in question. The OPs assured that in case if the previous complaint is decided in favour of the complainant then the amount deposited by the complainant will be adjusted in future bills. The previous complaint was decided vide order dated 14.08.2013. He argued that the said amount of Rs. 62,500/- be ordered to be refunded to the complainant by the Ops. The counsel for the complainant referred the affidavit dated 31.05.2016.
7. Learned Counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that during the pendency of previous complaint, the complainant adopted new scheme launched by the Nigam and after the deposit of Rs. 62,500/- by the complainant with the OPs, the Ops released the tubewell connection to the complainant. The present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as tubewell connection has already been released to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get refunded the said amount as alleged by him.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. We have perused the order dated 14.08.2013 passed by this District Forum in complaint No. 154 of 2012 between the same parties of the present complaint. It was ordered as under:-
1. To release the tubewell connection under A.P. category to the complainant on the basis of old sale circular bearing No. D-80/2001 as per terms of the policy.
2. To pay Rs. 2200/- as costs of litigation.
There is no mention of deposit of Rs. 62,500/- by the complainant with the OPs in the said order and no reference has been made in the said order regarding the refund of any amount. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the following prayer:-
It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents may be ordered to release the connection within a specific period, so as to unable the complainant to sow crops in the fields and be ordered to compensate the complainant with exemplary cost alongwith compensation for deficiency in service and harassing the complainant.
From the perusal of the order dated 14.08.2013 passed in complaint No. 154 of 2012 and the prayer clause of the present complaint wherein the same relief has been claimed by the complainant. Both the previous and present complaint are between the same parties and the relief claimed is also the same i:e release of tube well connection. Therefore, the principles of res judicata applies in this case and the second complaint of the complainant is barred.
9. The argument of the counsel for the complainant for the refund of Rs. 62,500/- is not sustainable because no material has come on the file that the OPs have to refund the said amount to the complainant, if the complaint of the complainant is allowed, as alleged by the complainant. Nor any prayer has been made by the complainant in this complaint for the refund of the said amount. Considering the facts of the case, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Dated:-25.07.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member Member
