BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint no. 193/2018.
Date of instt. 17.07.2018. Date of Decision: 31.01.2020
Bhagwan Dass son of Shri Malu Ram, resident of Village Jamalpur Sheikhan, Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad now at Prem Nagar, Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad.
..Complainant.
Versus
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through Executive Engineer, Operation Division, DHBVN, Tohana District Fatehabad.
- Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation Sub-Division, Sub-Urban, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Tohana Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad.
- The SE, Operation circle, DHBVN, Hisar District Hisar.
..Respondents/OPs.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President. Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Argued by: Sh. H.S.Toor, Advocate for complainant. Sh. Dushyant Gera, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he had applied for releasing the tube-well electricity connection for his agricultural land situated in village Jamalpur Shekhan, District Fatehabad on 24.05.2005 vide application no. 14661/AP and as per instructions of the Ops the complainant deposited the requisite security of Rs.305/- vide receipt no. 283/16710 and also submitted all the relevant documents in the office of Ops and fulfilled all the formalities. Therefore the complainant is the consumer of the Ops as defined in the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. It is further the case of the complainant that he visited the office of the Ops for several times and thereafter it was told by the Ops that number of his application has not come and as and when his number will come he will be intimated. However till January 2011, no intimation was given to the complainant and in the year 2011 when the complainant contacted the Ops and made enquiry about his file from the office of the OP No. 2, then it was told to the complainant that his application for releasing the tube-well connection has been cancelled on 21.12.2006. It was also told to the complainant that he was intimated regarding cancellation vide letter dated 13.03.2006. However no such letter was ever received by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant visited the office of Ops time and again but no intimation was given to the complainant. It is further submitted that thereafter the complainant approached to OP No. 1 and intimated all the true facts. Thereafter the OP No. 1 sent a letter dated 21.03.2011 to OP No. 3 and assured the complainant that within a short period the tube-well electricity connection will be released. It is further submitted that the complainant has already installed the tube-well and has made construction of Kotha and have also installed the necessary machine such as starter etc. It is also submitted that the complainant has no other source of irrigation and as such tube-well electricity connection is necessary to irrigate his land. It is also further submitted that the persons who had applied after the complainant for tube-well electricity connection have already been released the same. It is further submitted that all the formalities have been completed by the complainant and a demand notice has been issued by the Nigam and the test report has been deposited by the complainant. Therefore any instructions if issued by the Ops after completion of the formalities the same are not binding upon the complainant. The complainant also served a legal notice to the Ops through his counsel but all in vain.
3. It is further submitted that the above said act on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in rendering service to him. The complainant has further prayed that the present complaint may be accepted and the Ops may be directed to release the tube-well electricity connection to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.
4. On being served, the Ops filed a joint written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and suppression of true and correct facts etc. have been raised.
5. In reply, on merits it is submitted that the complainant had deposited the security amount with the Ops. However the said application was cancelled on 21.12.2006 due to non compliance of the demand notice. It is also further submitted that the area where the complainant has sought to get the tube-well electricity connection falls under the dark zone and as per the instructions of the Government, the tube-well electricity connection cannot be released in the area of the dark zone. All the allegations levelled by the complainant in the complaint have been denied. It has been further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of Ops in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is without any merit and as such deserved dismissal.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Ex. CW-1/A and the documents as Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-5. On the other hand, Sh. Deepak Yadav, SDO operation tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex. R-1 and the document as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence of the Ops.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the documents placed on record.
8. It is the case of the complainant that he applied for releasing of tube-well electricity connection with the Ops on 24.05.2005 and an amount of security to the tune of Rs.305/- was also deposited by him alongwith the application. It is further the case of the complainant that all the formalities had been completed by him and the relevant documents were also submitted in the office of Ops. However despite many visits made by the complainant in the office of the Ops the tube-well connection was not released to him and it was told that as and when number of the complainant shall come he will be intimated through registered post. However till January 2011 no intimation was given by the Ops and as such the complainant contacted OP No. 1 and it was told that his application has been cancelled on 21.12.2006. However no intimation was ever received by the complainant regarding the cancellation of his application. It is further the case of the complainant that when the complainant intimated to the Ops that no cancellation letter has been received by him then OP No. 1 sent a letter dated 21.03.2011 to OP No. 3 in this regard and it was further assured that the tube-well electricity connection will be released to him very shortly. Thereafter the Ops flatly refused to issue the electricity connection. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex. CW-1/A wherein the averments made in the complaint have been affirmed. The complainant has also placed on record copy of letter(Annexure C-1) written by Executive Engineer Operation Division Tohana to SC Operation DHBVN Hisar and the letter Annexure C-2 written by SDO, Tohana to Executive Engineer DHBVN, Tohana.
9. On the other hand, it is the case of the Ops that the complainant did not make compliance of the demand notice and as such his application was cancelled on 21.12.2016. It is further the case of the Ops that the area where the complainant has sought the tube-well electricity connection falls under the Dark Zone and as per the Government instructions tube-well electricity connection cannot be released in the Dark Zone.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is not disputed that the complainant had applied for release of the tube-well electricity connection in the year 2005 with the Ops and he had deposited security of Rs.305/- in this connection. As per their written statement the Ops have contested the present complaint mainly on the ground that the complainant did not make compliance of the demand notice issued to him and as such his application was cancelled on 21.12.2006. It is the contention of the complainant that the information of the cancellation of his application was never received by him. Therefore, onus was upon the Ops to prove that demand notice was issued to the complainant and thereafter intimation regarding cancellation of the tube-well electricity connection in question was issued to the complainant. However the Ops have not placed on record any convincing or credible evidence or any other communication to prove that demand notice was issued to the complainant and intimation regarding cancellation of the application of the complainant was communicated to him. In the written statement even it has not been pleaded by the Ops that intimation regarding cancellation of the application of the complainant was given to the complainant. Therefore, the Ops have failed to prove that the demand notice was issued to the complainant and intimation regarding cancellation of his application was given to him. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the year 2005 when the application for release of tube-well electricity connection was submitted by the complainant with the OPs the notification of Dark Zone was not issued by the Government. Therefore the above said notification as alleged by the OPs is not applicable in the case of the complainant.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of Ops in rendering service to him. The present complaint is accordingly allowed and the Ops are directed to release the tube-well electricity connection to the complainant within 2 months as per the circular applicable in this regard on the date when the application was submitted by the complainant. A copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of cost as provided in the rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum:
Dt. 31.01.2020
(Jasvinder Singh) (Raghbir Singh) Member President DCDRF, Fatehabad.
