BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.24 of 2020
Date of Instt.: 13.2.2020
Date of Decision: 8.1.2021
Pahlad son of Sajjna Devi widow of Sh. Dayanand. resident of village Bhariwas, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.
Complainant
Versus
- M.D. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar, through XEN Operation Division, DHBVN, Bhiwani.
- XEN, Operation Division, DHBVN, Bhiwani.
- SDO Operation Sub Division, DHBVN, Tosham, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.
Respondents/OPs
Complaint under the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986
Before: Mr. Nagender Singh, President.
Mr. Shriniwas Khundia, Member.
Argued by: Complainant Pahlad in person.
Ms. Reena Sharma, Adv. for OPs.
ORDER:-
NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT
The present complaint is being pursued by the complainant Pahlad after the death of her mother Sajjna (who actually had filed the present complaint and died during the pendency of the present complaint) stating therein that Sajjna Devi had applied for releasing of tubewell electric connection with the respondent No. 3 on 2.3.2015 vide her application No. 73453/AP and deposited the required amount of Rs. 30,750/- vide receipt No.172 dated 2.3.2015 as per the directions of OPs and on the assurance of OPs that the tubewell electricity connection will be released to the complainant very soon. It is averred that the complainant got done the bore of tubewell and also got fitted the necessary equipments and thereafter waited for about 4 years for release of tubewell electricity connection but it is averred that despite several visits and requests made by the complainant, the respondents failed to issue the tubewell electricity connection to the complainant. Hence, by alleging deficiency in service on the part of respondents, the complainant seeks directions against the respondents to issue the tubewell electricity connection immediately and to pay compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and the litigation expenses besides any other relief which this forum/commission may found deem fit and proper.
2. On notice, the OPs appeared and by way of their written statement averred that the complainant did not follow the guidelines and rules and regulations of the nigam as mentioned in sale circular bearing Nos. D-6/2019, No. D-10/2019 & No. D-30/2019. It is averred that the complainant also did not submit the online payment of tubewell motor and the estimated amount of tubewell connection. It is also averred that due to heavy pendency of tubewell connections till the year 2019, tubewell connections have been issued to those applicants who applied in the year 2013 and fulfilled the terms and conditions of sale circulars issued in this regard. But it is averred that the complainant did not follow the procedure and also did not fulfill the terms and conditions for connection. Moreover, it is averred that the complainant has deposited only a sum of Rs. 30,750/-on 2.3.2018 whereas the estimated amount assessed by nigam to release the connection is around Rs. 1,26,700/-which has not been still deposited by the applicant. Hence, it is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation from the respondents. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the respondents.
3. The complainant failed to produce any evidence and hence, the evidence of complainant was closed by court order on 15.10.2020 by this Commission.
On the other hand, the respondents tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and documents as Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-5 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the arguments of complainant appearing in person and the learned counsel of OPs and gone through the entire evidence so placed on record by the parties very carefully and minutely.
During the course of arguments, the complainant reiterated the contents of his complaint and the learned counsel of respondents reiterated the contents of reply filed by the respondents and drawn the attention of this Forum/Commission towards the documents so placed on record by both the parties.
5. After hearing arguments and going through the entire case file and perusing the documents so placed on record very carefully and minutely, we have observed that in the present complaint, the complainant had allegedly applied for new tubewell connection vide his application No. 73453 and deposited the total required amount of Rs. 30,750/-vide receipt dated 2.3.2015 which is placed on record. It is the allegation of complainant in his complaint that the respondents have not yet released the tubewell connection to the complainant which was applied by the complainant in the year 2015 and this fact is also not denied by the respondents in their reply as well as at the time of arguments. We have observed that the respondents have only taken the stand in their written statement that there is no deficiency in service on their part as the complainant did not follow the guidelines and rules and regulations of the nigam as mentioned in sale circular bearing No. D-6/2019, No. D-10/2019 and No. D-30/2019 and nothing more. On perusal of documents so submitted by the parties on the case file, we are of the considered view that when the complainant had applied the tubewell electric connection in the year 2015 and she had also deposited the required amount for the said purpose in that year, the respondents were supposed to get the formalities completed at that time, but we have observed that the respondents have issued circulars in the year 2019 i.e. sale circular bearing Nos. D-6/2019, No. D-10/2019 and No. D-30/2019 after passing a period about four years and hence, the complainant had to take the shelter of this Commission despite the fact that the complainant was not bound to follow the guidelines and rule and regulations of the nigam of sale circulars issued in the year 2019 i.e. after passing of about four years after submission of application regarding release of tubewell electricity connection in the year 2015. Moreover, when the respondents failed to release the tubewell electricity connection to the complainant, Pahlad being the only legal heirs of Sajjna (original complainant), had approached and complained the matter on C.M. Window, detail of which is available in document which is now marked as JN-1 and on perusal of said document (JN-1), we have observed that it is mentioned on the C.M. Window Action Taken Report (ATR) itself that “the AP connections are released in nigam as per decision of State government. These AP connections are released in bulk and the policy at the time of release of connections is applicable to the pending AP category connections. At present, the AP connections applied from 1.1.2014 to 31.12.2018 are under process for release. It is also mentioned in the said ATR that the applicant had applied before the announcement of new policy dated 6.9.2019”. Further we have also observed that this Commission has already decided two similar case on dated 20.11.2020 on the same footage i.e. titled as Surender Singh Vs. DHBVNL etc. (complaint case No. 827 of 2019) and Bhalleram vs. DHBVNL etc. (C.C. No. 828 of 2019), wherein the SDO concerned had made endorsement on the ATRs that the demand of complainant farmer is genuine one. So, there is clear admission of respondent No.3 that the demand of farmer was genuine and in this way, it can be easily said that the complainant was entitled for the release of tubewell electricity connection much before filing of the present complaint. But it has been observed by this Commission that by not releasing the said tubewell electricity connection to the complainant, the respondents have committed deficiency in service on their part towards the complainant and as such, the complainant suffered a lot of harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.
Therefore, in these circumstances, we declare the respondents to be deficient and negligent in not releasing tube-well connection to the complainant for a long period of about 4 years. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is hereby allowed with costs and accordingly, the complainant Pahlad is directed to submit the legal document that he is the sole L.R. of deceased Sajjna Devi (the original complainant) and if there is any other legal heir of deceased Sajja Devi, he is further directed to submit the affidavit from the said other legal heirs that they have no objection if the tubewell electric connection is released in the name of Pahlad complainant. The respondents are also directed to release the tubewell connection in the name of said Pahlad as per terms and conditions prevailing at the time of application, on submission of legal/authentic document proving this fact that he (Pahlad) is only the legal heir of deceased Sajjna Devi. The respondents are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5500/- as compensation on account of deficiency in services and harassment etc. and Rs.5500/- as counsel fee as well as litigation charges to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order. In case of default, the respondents shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 100/-per day as penalty amount on total amount as directed above from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.
File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum
Dated: - 8.1.2021
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
