STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No.737 of 2018
Date of Institution: 06.06.2018
Date of Decision: 25.02.2022
1. SDO, UHBVN Ltd., Sub-Division Murthal, Sonepat.
2. JE, UHBVN Ltd., Sub Office Bhatgaon, Tehsil and District Sonepat.
….Appellants
Versus
Dharam Pal son of Late Shri Suraj Bhan, R/o Village Badshahpur Machhri, Tehsil and District Sonepat.
……Respondent
CORAM: Mr.A S Narang, Judicial Member.
Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member.
Present:- Mr. B.S. Negi, counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Sikander Bakshi, counsel for the respondent.
O R D E R
A.S. NARANG, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
(The matter has been heard through virtual hearing).
UHBVN Ltd. and another (Appellants) have filed this appeal against the order dated 16.04.2018, whereby the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (DCDRF) has allowed the complaint filed by Mr. Dharam Pal (Complainant) against them.
2. On 02.02.2018, complainant filed the complaint against the appellants before the DCDRF, Sonepat with the averments that his father Mr. Suraj Bhan had applied for electricity tubewell connection and deposited Rs.220/- with the appellants on 16.06.1992 vide receipt No.275 dated 16.06.1992. His father died on 20.01.2017. Thereafter, he visited the office of appellants many times and he was assured that the connection would be released, but the same was not done by the appellants. He was further asked by the appellants to deposit Rs.20,000/-. However, the connection was not released. Hence, the complaint.
3. Appellants, in written reply, admitted that Mr. Suraj Bhan (Father of the complainant) had deposited Rs.220/- with them as security. They alleged that they had issued demand notice in the month of February, 1994 for releasing of electric tubewell connection, but Suraj Bhan did not complete the formalities and accordingly the security was cancelled.
4. Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit (Ex.CW1/A), Receipt of Security Fee (Ex.C-1), Death Certificate of Suraj Bhan (Ex.C-2), Copy of Jamabandi (Ex.C-3), Copy of Map by Patwari (Ex.C-4).
5. On the other hand, respondents tendered in evidence affidavit of Mr. Sandeep Sikri, SDO, UHBVNL, Sub Divn. Murthal (Ex.RW1/A) and documents Copy of letter dated 19.03.2018 (Ex.R-1, Copy of Register (Ex.R-2).
6. After hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on the record, vide impugned order dated 16.04.2018, the DCDRF allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to release the electricity tubewell connection in favour of the complainant. Complainant was also directed to deposit the amount as per scheme prevailing at the time he had applied for electricity tubewell connection. Further directions were issued to the appellants for releasing the electricity tubewell connection within 60 days.
7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the DCDRF, Sonepat appellants have filed this appeal.
8. We have heard Mr. B.S. Negi, counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sikander Bakshi, counsel for the respondent. We have also perused the record of DCDRF.
9. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. B.S. Negi, counsel for the appellants has argued that the complaint filed before the DCDRF was time barred. Complainant did not raise any dispute during his life time. Electricity tubewell connection was applied in the year, 1992 and till 2018, no complaint was filed. He has further argued that complainant had also not written to the appellants that the connection be released. He further argued that the appellants are ready to release the electricity tubewell connection in case the complainant deposits the prevailing charges. Accordingly, the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set-aside.
10. Per contra, Mr. Sikander Bakshi, counsel for the respondent argued that no intimation was given by the appellants to the complainant that his application has been cancelled. No amount was refunded to him. Appellants never raised plea before the DCDRF that the nephew of the complainant has objection to release the electricity tubewell connection in favour of the complainant.
11. We have perused the record and gone through the impugned order. It is proved on the record that the father of complainant had applied for electricity tubewell connection in the year, 1992. There is nothing on the record that the appellants had ever informed him that his application has been cancelled. In view of this, we are of the considered view that the DCDRF has rightly allowed the complaint. A reading of the impugned order would show that the appellants never raised plea before the DCDRF that the nephew of the complainant had objection to the release of electricity tubewell connection to the complainant. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the present appeal.
12. At this stage, Mr. Bakshi, counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is ready to deposit Rs.20,000/- more, apart from Rs.30,000/- already deposited by the complainant with the appellants. In view of this, complainant is directed to deposit the same within 10 days and the appellants would release the electricity tubewell connection in favour of the complainant (Respondent) within one month from the passing of this order. We would like to clarify that the appellants would not raise any bill of electricity adding therein the prevailing charges. We are of the considered view that the DCDRF has appraised the evidence on the record properly and rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. We affirm the order passed by the DCDRF and dismiss the present appeal. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court
February 25th, 2022 Suresh Chander Kaushik A S Narang Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
R.K
