BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 248 of 2022
Date of Institution : 04.04.2022
Date of Decision : 06.07.2022.
Madan Lal son of Sh. Birbal Dass, r/o VPO Tappi Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa now residing at Opp. Bishnoi Mandir, Choutala Road, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. The Superintendent Engineer DHBVN Sirsa.
2. The Executive Engineer DHBVN Dabwali.
3. SDO DHBVN Kalanwali.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………….. MEMBER
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA……………….MEMBER
Present: Sh. Mukesh Arya, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. P.K. Kochar, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant applied for a tubewell connection vide No. 60803 at village Tappi, Tehsil Kalanwali District Sirsa on 03.09.2012 and deposited an amount of Rs.1250/- as security and further amount of Rs.30,000/- was deposited with the concerned office of op no.3 on 5.7.2016 vide receipt No.46/1345. That aforesaid connection was cancelled after 15.06.2018 showing the reasons that demand notices were sent to the complainant three times on 5.2.20218, 13.3.2018 and 15.6.2018 to submit the consent letter within 7 days of receipt of aforesaid notices and the connection was cancelled in absence of consent letter from the complainant. It is further averred that in fact, complainant did not receive any of such demand notice as alleged by ops in their reply. The notice bearing memo No.521 dated 5.2.2018 was got received from Chotu Ram brother of complainant but remaining two notices were not received and do not bear any receiving. Said Chhotu Ram is an illiterate person who signed only at the instructions of employee of ops. The said cancellation of the said connection is grossly illegal and unwarranted as the connection was applied by complainant on his land in the individual capacity upon fulfillment of all the formalities for issuance of said connection in his name and Chhotu Ram has no locus standi to sign/ receive said notice. It is further averred that complainant is an illiterate, rustic, layman and is in dire need of said connection to improve his agricultural land. The complainant applied for said connection in 2012 and was cancelled without any rhyme and reason or without his fault of which he came to know through Sh. Sandeep Kularia, Advocate real nephew of complainant after a long struggle in July, 2019. It is further averred that whenever complainant used to visit the concerned office at Kalanwali, every time the employees of ops assured about issuance of said connection soon. The complainant kept on approaching the ops and thereafter there was lockdown in India due to corona virus disease from March, 2020. Even the complainant under the false assurance of ops purchased a submersible motor on 27.12.2018 by spending huge amount of Rs.30,500/- alongwith PPR Flange 9 pipes 4” make of vectus for Rs.13,500/-, 115 PVC 315 mm for Rs.28,750/-, starter and other equipments for Rs.5000/-. Besides this, complainant also spent around Rs.80,000/- on Bore-well and an amount of Rs.60,000/- on construction of room and thus he spent total amount of Rs.2,17,750/- besides earnest money deposited with the concerned office. All this huge expenditure was made at the instance of ops. It is further averred that complainant was not informed of the actual position even after visiting the concerned office until and unless an application was moved before the SE on 2.7.2021 submitting all the aforesaid story to reinstate the connection, the reply of which is still pending, however, all the information was collected by the complainant by filing RTI application. The act and conduct of the ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service against the complainant due to which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and mental agony. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the ops to issue the tubewell connection and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for harassment and also to pay an amount f Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. On notice, ops appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per record of ops, the complainant applied for tubewell connection on 30.09.2012 under A&A No. 65080 and complainant deposited Rs.30,000/- as consent money on 5.7.2016. It is further submitted that as per record of ops, a demand notice for deposition of estimate cost and other formalities was issued on the complainant vide memo no. 521 dated 5.2.2018, which bears the receiving of Shri Chhotu Ram brother of complainant, second demand notice was also issued to the complainant vide this office memo no.1077 dated 13.3.2018 which bears no receiving and third demand notice was issued vide memo no.2582 dated 15.6.2018 which also bears no receiving. These three demand notices were issued to the complainant to submit the consent letter within 7 days but as per the available record of the ops, the application of complainant regarding tubewell connection stands cancelled. It is further submitted that this application got cancelled after issuing three demand notices as per the validity of demand notice as per electricity supply code reg. letter no. HERC/29/2014 Sales Circulars No.D-17/2017 is 90 days. The cancelled application can be got revived after the cancellation of Chief Commercial memo No. Ch-60/SE/C/318-H/Vol-1 dated 31.12.2017. The said connection cannot be released as per standing instruction of the Nigam. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, application dated 2.7.2021 Ex.C2, copy of demand notice dated 5.2.2018 Ex.C3, copy of demand notice dated 13.3.2018 Ex.C4 and copy of demand notice dated 15.6.2018 Ex.C5, copy of adhar card Ex.C6, reply to information under RTI Act, 2005 Ex.C7 alongwith memo No. 4527 dated 20.7.2021 Ex.C8, copy of tax invoice of the amount of Rs.28,750/- Ex.C9, copy of tax invoice of amount of Rs.44,000/- Ex.C10, photostat copy of photograph of tubewell with kotha Ex.C11.
4. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Ravi, SDO Ex.R1, copies of demand notices Ex.R2 to Ex.R4, reply to information under RTI Act, 2005 Ex.R5 alongwith memo No. 4527 dated 20.7.2021 Ex.R6.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. There is no dispute of the fact that on 3.9.2012 complainant had applied for a tubewell connection for his agricultural land in village Tappi, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa by depositing security amount of Rs.1250/-. It is also undisputed fact between the parties that an amount of Rs.30,000/- was deposited by complainant with ops on 5.7.2016. According to complainant, he came to know about cancellation of his application for release of tubewell connection through his real nephew Sh. Sandeep Kularia, Advocate after a long struggle in July, 2019 and prior to this on his every visit to the office of ops, he was being assured by the officials of the ops that connection will be released to him very soon and on their false assurances, he also spent huge amount of Rs.2,17,750/- for purchasing equipments for tubewell connection and construction of room. The reason for cancellation of application of complainant for release of tubewell connection given by ops is that three demand notices dated 5.2.2018, 13.3.2018 and 15.6.2018 were issued to the complainant calling upon the complainant to submit the consent letter within seven days of receipt of these notices and as no response was received from complainant, the application of complainant was cancelled. On the other hand, it is the specific plea of the complainant that he did not receive any demand notice from ops. There is also admission of ops that there is no receiving of two notices dated 13.3.2018 and 15.6.2018 and said fact is also proved from the copies of notices dated 13.3.2018 and 15.6.2018 (Ex.C4 and Ex.C5) which clearly show that said notices have not been received by complainant. Although, the copy of demand notice dated 5.2.2018 issued in the name of Madan Lal complainant bears signatures of Chhotu Ram brother of complainant but complainant has categorically stated that his brother Chhotu Ram is an illiterate person who signed only at the instructions of employee of ops. Moreover, according to complainant as said connection was applied by him for his agricultural land in individual capacity, so demand notice should have been given to him. The ops have not explained as to why above said two notices do not bear any receiving from complainant and as to why notice dated 5.2.2018 was given to Chhotu Ram instead of complainant. The ops have not explained that as complainant was not found present on the spot, so notice was given to his brother Chhotu Ram. There is nothing on file to prove the fact that Chhotu Ram brother of complainant ever intimated the complainant about receiving of notice dated 5.2.2018 and therefore, it is proved on record that complainant did not receive any of three alleged notices issued by ops. The ops were not supposed to cancel the application of complainant without having receipt of any demand notice from the complainant and complainant was waiting for release of connection after deposit of huge amount of Rs.30,000/- and spending huge amount of Rs.2,17,750/- and therefore, it cannot be said that complainant himself was not willing to avail tubewell connection. It is also proved on record that complainant in order to avail tubewell connection also spent huge amount for purchase of equipments and on construction of room and on bore-well which fact is evident from copies of bills and photograph Ex.C9 to Ex.C11. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of ops towards the complainant. The cancellation of the application of complainant is wrong and illegal. The ops are, therefore liable to restore the application of complainant and to issue fresh demand notice to the complainant and ops are also liable to pay compensation to the complainant for harassment for delay of 5/6 years in release of tubewell connection to the complainant as in 2016 complainant deposited amount of Rs.30,000/- for getting connection. Further, ops will claim only an amount of Rs.12,500/- from the complainant by way of fresh demand notice as per demand notices dated 13.3.2018 and 15.06.2018.
7. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to restore the application of complainant for release of tubewell connection and also to issue fresh demand notice to the complainant within a period of 45 days. The ops are also directed to release tubewell connection to the complainant within further period of 15 days after completion of necessary formalities and deposit of Rs.12,500/- from the complainant. The ops will claim only an amount of Rs.12,500/- from the complainant by way of fresh demand notice as per demand notices dated 13.3.2018 and 15.06.2018. We also direct the ops to pay lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment, delay in release of connection including litigation expenses to the complainant. In case, ops fail to comply with the above said directions within above said stipulated period, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Sections 71/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the ops. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced. Member Member President,
Dated: 06.07.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
