BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No.261/2016.
Date of Instt.: 05.10.2016.
Date of Decision: 11.09.2017
Mukesh Kumar son of Atma Ram, resident of village Khajuri Jatti, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.
..Complainant
Versus
1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad District Fatehabad through its Executive Engineer.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division, DHBVN, City Fatehabad District Fatehabad.
..Opposite parties
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President
Sh. Ranbir Singh Panghal, Member.
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present: Sh. Vishnu Dara, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.D. Gijroiya, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had applied for releasing tubewell electric connection for his agricultural land situated in village Dhanger, Tehsil and District Fatehabad on 19.7.2005 vide A&A No.14695 and as per the instructions of the ops, the complainant had deposited the requisite security of Rs.455/- on 19.7.005 vide BA16 No.196/75669 under handicapped scheme/quota and fulfilled all the formalities and submitted all the relevant documents in the office of ops. It is further averred that after completion of all the formalities, the ops had sent demand notice to the complainant and consequently the complainant deposited relevant documents such as agreement and bills of material purchased by complainant as directed by ops. The complainant deposited the cost of the transformer i.e. Rs.20,000/- on dated vide BA 16 No.200/4017 dated 21.10.2006. It is further averred that complainant has installed the tubewell and made necessary construction of kotha etc. and installed the necessary machine such as starter etc. and in this way the complainant has incurred the expenses of more than Rs.two lacs. The complainant is having no other source of irrigation to his land, therefore, tubewell electric connection is necessary to irrigate his land. It is further averred that inspite of requests made by complainant, the ops are not releasing the tubewell connection to the complainant whereas they have released the connection to the persons who have applied for releasing the same after the complainant. The instructions issued by the ops after completing the formalities by the complainant are not binding upon the complainant. It is further averred that tubewell of the complainant is installed where the main line has been laid down by the ops and current has been commenced in that wires. The complainant is being discriminated by the ops and he is facing very hardship and is suffering irrepairable loss. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply asserting therein that complaint is not maintainable because the security deposited by the complainant with the Nigam vide application No.14695 AP dated 19.7.2005 was deposited with the Junior Engineer Sub Office DHBVN Badopal and after deposit of the amount of Rs.20,000/- on 21.10.2006, it was informed to the complainant by the office vide letter No.1086 dated 30.8.2010 that this connection falls on another sub division and the office was not informed in this regard by the complainant, so the complainant was directed to give details of his kotha, tubewell and line of another office within one month otherwise his applicable will be cancelled. But the complainant did not give any reply to that letter and prior to it also notice was sent to the complainant but he did not give any reply to that notice also. Thereafter, J.E. 1st Sub Office, DHBVN Badopal issued letter No.114 dated 29.4.2011 to the complainant regarding cancellation of application of tubewell connection in which it was informed to him that for the second time he was given notice No.1086 dated 30.6.2010 to inform about construction of kotha and bore but he did not pay any heed and even after notice he was given one month time but despite that he did not inform the office that his kotha and bore is ready, so his application was cancelled vide letter dated 29.4.2011 for non completion of instructions of the ops. Other preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action, time barred, estopp and suppression of material facts have also been taken and dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. The complainant filed rejoinder against the reply of ops wherein it is asserted that complaint is maintainable as the ops are regularly enjoying the fruits of security amount in the office of ops at JE, Sub Office DHBVN, Badopal and amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited by consumer on 21.0.2006. The ops have taken wrong plea of non compliance of letter No.1086 dated 30.8.2010. The ops have mentioned that the ops sent number of notices to the complainant prior to this letter but failed to give the details, number and date of dispatch of these notices to the complainant but same were never sent to the complainant nor he has received such letter or notice from the ops. No postal receipt has been placed on record by ops and the ops have failed to disclose the date of dispatch of these letters and notice through registered post and refusal of such notices by the complainant and date of cancellation of application. The ops are completely silent about the sales circulars No.D-09/2008 (one time chance for revival of cancelled application) as well as about sales circular No.D-32/2002, D-24/2005 and D-12/2006. The ops have not furnished any details of notice for revival as well as notice for refund of security which were mandatory in case of cancelled application as per sales circular No.D-09/2008. The ops have also tried to mislead this Forum by only placing on record the copy of register of department and letters No.1086 and 114 but completely silent about the way of their dispatch to the complainant either by registered post or by hand and also not disclosed the fact that the letters had been received to the complainant or refused by him. It is also pertinent to mention here that complainant is resident of village Khajuri Jati and some part of his agriculture land is situated in village Dhangar and this fact was disclosed to the ops at that time which fact is also evident from original connection file summoned from the ops and in all the documents given at the time of applying for the connection the address of the complainant has been mentioned as village Khajuri Jati and the alleged letters have been prepared and allegedly served upon complainant at village Dhanger where he is not residing. It is further asserted that as per letter No.1086 dated 30.8.2010 the complainant was directed to submit the details of preparation of kotha and bore to the another office of ops as his agriculture land falls within the area of that office, but as per the record of the connection file of the complainant, it is crystal clear that the official of ops have already visited to the site where the tubewell has been installed and after satisfactory report, rough site plan and estimate report of the component required for the connection, their quantity and rate has been prepared. The contents of the complaint have also been reiterated.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexures C1 to C21. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of Sh. Balbir Singh, JE Ex.RW1/A and copies of documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R14.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully. Written submission on behalf of complainant which is reiteration of complainant and rejoinder has also been perused. Learned counsel for the complainant has also relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (PSPCL) & Nar. Vs. Kuldeep Singh, I (2011) CPJ 246 (NC).
6. There is no dispute that complainant had applied for tubewell connection for his agricultural land situated in village Dhanger, Tehsil and District Fatehabad on 19.7.2005 vide A&A No.14695 and had deposited the requisite security amount of Rs.455/- on 19.7.2005 which fact is also proved from receipt dated 19.7.2005 Annexure C2. It is also an admitted fact that complainant is 70% handicap as is evident from his medical certificate dated 8.11.1995 wherein it is mentioned that polio left lower limb and the complainant applied for the tubewell connection to the ops under handicapped quota. The case of the complainant is that after completion of all the formalities, the ops had sent demand notice to the complainant and accordingly he deposited relevant documents such as agreement and bills of material purchased by the complainant. The complainant also deposited the cost of the transformer of Rs.20,000/- vide BA 16 No.200/4017 dated 21.10.2006. From the receipt dated 21.10.2006 Annexure C2(A), it is evident that complainant deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 27.10.2006 with the opposite parties. But the opposite parties have not released the connection to the complainant so far. Case of the opposite parties is that the complainant was given notice No.1086 dated 30.8.2010 requiring him to inform the other office of ops about kotha and bore within one month, otherwise his application will be cancelled but complainant failed to do so. It is further the case of the ops that vide letter No.114 dated 29.4.2011 the application of the complainant was cancelled as he did not pay any heed to the notice dated 30.8.2010. Whereas the complainant has denied to have received any such notice from the ops. Both the letters dated 30.8.2010 and 29.4.2011 allegedly sent by the ops to the complainant mentions the address of complainant being resident of village Dhangar whereas according to the complainant he is resident of village Khajuri Jatti and in this regard he has also placed on record copy of his voter identity card wherein he is shown to be resident of the said village Khajuri Jatti. Further more, in the connection file of the ops summoned by this Forum on the application of complainant, the affidavit of Atma Ram father of complainant is on file wherein also the address of Mukesh Kumar complainant is shown as resident of village Khajuri Jati. In the revenue record i.e. mutation also, the complainant is shown as resident of village Khajuri Jati. The opposite parties have not placed on file any document showing receipt of the complainant of the above said letters/ notices. The complainant has specifically deposed in his affidavit that he never received any notice or intimation in this regard from the opposite parties. In these circumstances, it was upon the opposite parties to prove service of any notice or due intimation to the complainant. But in this regard, there is nothing to show that any letter of the opposite parties, was ever actually delivered to the complainant. Simple placing on record copies of two letters of the J.E addressed to the complainant is not sufficient without proof of actual delivery. Further more, the opposite parties have not given any chance for revival of application of the complainant and have violated their own circulars copies of which are placed on file by the complainant as Annexures C17 to C20. Non releasing of the tubewell connection to the complainant for such a long period despite getting deposited security amount and costs of the transformer is recurring cause of action to the complainant and due to act and conduct of the ops, the complainant has suffered a lot of harassment and the ops are deficient in service towards the complainant. In our opinion, the complainant is entitled to release of tubewell connection on the policy/ scheme prevailing at the time of applying of the tubewell connection by the complainant and he is also entitled to special quota being a handicapped person as per the policy of the ops. In this regard we are also fortified with the observations of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Kuldeep Singh (supra) wherein it has been held that “Electricity connection not provided, circular released. No retrospective effect- Complainant’s father applied for A.P. connection- Father died- Complainant applied for change of name and paid all fees- Complainant failed to get connection- Other applicants were issued connection- Alleged deficiency in service- District For a allowed complaint- State Commission dismissed appeal- Hence revision- Op contended that policy with regard to release of connection is changed- Changing of policy cannot be made applicable retrospectively and should not affect complainant connection- Order of For a below upheld.” The above said authority is fully applicable in this case.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to release the tubewell connection to the complainant within a period of one month on the policy/ scheme prevailing at the time of applying for the same by the complainant and he is also entitled to special quota, if any being a handicapped person as per policy of the ops and also keeping in view deposit of the cost of transformer and other materials already purchased by the complainant. We also direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. This order should be complied with by the ops jointly and severally with a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to initiate proceedings under Sections 25/27 of the Act against the opposite parties. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:11.9.2017
(Raghbir Singh)
President,
(R.S. Panghal) (Ansuya Bishnoi) Distt.Consumer Disputes
Member Member Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
