DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.104 OF 2014.
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 15.04.2014.
DATE OF ORDER: .18.07.2016
- Paras (aged 40 years).
- Didar Singh (aged 38 years) sons of Jai Lal, residents of village Berla, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
………Complainants.
Versus
- Managing Director, DHBVNL, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar.
- Executive Engineer, DHBVNL, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
- S.D.O., Sub Urban, Sub Division, DHBVN, Jhojhu Kalan, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
………Respondents.
- Manbhari widow of Jai Lal, resident of village Berla, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
- Krishna wife of Dalbir and daughter of Jai Lal,
- Keshar wife of Chhatter Singh and daughter of Jai Lal, both residents of village – Ladan Panna, Chakhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
- Jasbir son of Jai Lal,
- Satish son of Ram Dhan,
both residents of village – Berla, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
…Proforma Respondents
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,
BEFORE: Shri Rajesh Jindal, President,
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member,
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Present: None for the complainant.
Shri K.R. Sangwan, Advocate for Ops No. 1 to 3.
None for Ops no. 4,5,7 & 8.
OP no. 6 exparte.
ORDER:-
RAJESH JINDAL, President:
In brief, the case of the complainants is that tubewell connection bearing no. DR-52-0673 was issued in the name of deceased Jailal son of Mai Dhan by the OP no. 3 under A.P. category and above said tubewell connection has been running continuously without any objection in the name of deceased Jai Lal and used by the complainant as well as by the proforma respondents jointly. It is alleged that after defaulting the amount of Rs. 18,990/- against the tubewell connection of the deceased Jai Lal son of Mai Dhan, a P.D.C.O. No. 5/173 has been issued by the Ops and tubewell connection has been permanently disconnected. It is alleged that the complainants, who are the legal heirs of Jai Lal son of Mai Dhan, have deposited the entire defaulting amount of Rs. 18,990/- with the office of OP no. 3 on 10.01.2014 but the OP no. 3 failed in issuing R.C.O. for the tubewell bearing account No. DR-52-0673. It is alleged that OP no. 3 issued a letter no. 448 dated 11.03.2014 to proforma respondent no. 4 for asking the legal heir of Jai Lal and after this Manbhari proforma respondent no. 4 filed affidavits to OP no. 3 in this regard. It is alleged that OP no. 2 issued a letter memo No. C.H.-438 dated 26.02.2014 to OP no. 3 for R.C.O. of A.P. tubewell connection of Sh. Jai Lal, as per Sale Mannual 2.3. but till today OP no. 3 has not issued the R.C.O. to the tubewell of the complainants. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. Opposite parties no. 1 to 3 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the complainants as well as proforma respondents are not the consumer of the answering respondent; as in the record of Nigam, the electric connection bearing account No. DR-52-0673 is still in the name of Jai Lal son of Maidhan. It is submitted that the legal heirs of the deceased Jai Lal did not submit any death certificate as well as succession certificate of deceased Jai Lal. It is submitted that as per rules and regulation of the Nigam, if the original consumer is not alive, then RCO could not be released in the name of a deceased person; rather RCO can be released in favour of his legal heirs and this fact was informed to the legal heirs of the deceased by the answering respondent vide letter memo no. 448 dated 11.03.2014. It is submitted that the executive engineer operation division, DHBVN, Charkhi Dadri has also written a letter memo no. CH-438/TC-24 dated 26.02.2014 for approval of RCO of AP connection of deceased Jai Lal and direction was given that action be taken for RCO of above said electric connection and intimate to this office. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed against respondents with costs.
3. Ops no. 7 & 8 filed separate written statement alleging therein that the answering respondents deposited a sum of Rs. 18,990/- as electric charges so nothing is due against the electric connection, hence the electric connection would not be transferred in the name of complainant. It is submitted that due to partition of electric connection a quarrel took place between the complainant and respondents and a case under Section 107/ 151 Cr. P.C. registered against both the parties. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondents and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed against answering respondents with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has placed on record documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 and C-5/A & C-5/B.
5. In reply thereto, Ops has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R-6 and Annexure R-7/8/A.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the Ops no. 1 to 3.
7. Learned Counsel for the Ops no. 1 to 3 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the tubewell connection was in the name of Jai Lal son of Mai Dhan, now deceased. Due to the default in the payment of the bill of Rs. 18,990/- against the said connection, a PDCO was issued and the connection has been permanently disconnected. The legal heirs of Jai Lal have deposited the defaulting amount of Rs. 18,890/- on 10.01.2014 and asking for the reconnection of said tubewell connection which was in the name of Jai Lal deceased. He further submitted hat there is dispute between the legal heirs of Jai Lal regarding that there is litigation between the legal heirs of Jail Lal Civil as well as criminal. He referred Calendra dated 04.06.2014 under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. relating to the complainants and OP no. 7 & 8. Admittedly, the tubewell connection in question was in the name of the Jai Lal deceased and the said connection was disconnected due to the non-payment of the bill and now there is no electricity connection is in existence. Therefore, the complainants cannot be said to be consumers qua Ops no. 1 to 3. Moreover, there is a dispute and litigation between the legal heirs of the Jai Lal regarding reconnection to the said tubewell, which is not within the jurisdiction of this District Forum. Taking into account every aspect of the case, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 18.07.2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member. Member.
