BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint No.80 of 2020
Date of Institution: 6.2.2020
Date of Order: 16.01.2023
Raj Pal aged 45 years , son of Shri Bal Ram, resident of Village VPO Jodhpuria, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
…..Complainant
Versus
- Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Managing Director at Hisar.
- Executive Engineer, Op, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, City Division, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
- Sub Divisional Officer, Op, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Panjuana Sub Division, District Sirsa.
….. Opposite parties
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 and
after amendment U/s 35of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: Sh.Padam Singh Thakur………………..President
Smt.Sukhdeep Kaur………………….…..Member
Sh. Om Parkash Tuteja………………….Member
Present: Sh.B.N.Suthar Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Rishi Sharma Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties for the release of tubewell connection of complainant of village Jodhpuria Tehsil Rania District Sirsa.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is permanent resident of village VPO Jodhpuria, Tehsil Rania, Distt.Sirsa, and the complainant is having agricultural land measuring 116 Kanals 3 Marlas, comprised in Sq.No.13, Killa No.4/2(7-0), 5(8-0), 6(8-0), 7(7-0), Sq.No.14 Killa No.1(8-0), 2(8-0), 3(8-0), 8(8-0), 9(8-0), 10(8-0), 12/2(6-16), 13(8-0), Sq.No.15 Killa No.9(9-2), 12(6-18), Khewat No. 254, Khatuani no.282, situate in Village Jodhpuria, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2007-08 and jamabandi for the year 2017-18. That in the month of January, 2009, complainant had applied for the tubewell connection to be installed in Killa No.9 of Sq.No.15 vide his application No.334187 dated 07.01.2009. The complainant had also deposited payment of Rs.1875/- with application vide receipt No.116/3123 dated 07.01.2009 and completed all the formalities required by the Ops.
3. The complainant further alleged that in the year 2010 two other farmers namely Ghisa Ram son of Uda Ram and Hawa Singh son of Niku Ram, residents of his village and one Naresh Kumar son of Bal Ram R/o Village Peerkhera, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa had also applied for the tubewell connections for their land situated in Village Jodhpuria, and Bukhara Khera, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. That in the compliance of the directions of Ops, the complainant had deposited the security amount of Rs.20000/- in the office of Op No.3 on 24.12.2010 vide receipt No.162/3348 AP LD Centro No.460. Despite repeated requests and demands of complainant, the Ops failed to release tubewell connection whereas the Ops had released the connection of Ghisa Ram son of Uda Ram R/o Jodhpuria Tehsil Rania District Sirsa who had applied for the new tubewell connection alongwith the complainant vide Account No.JP 61/0105 and also released tubewell connection to Hawa Singh son of Niku Ram R/o Jodhpuria vide A/c No.JD 61-0084 and also released other electric connection to some farmers of the area but did not release the electric connection to the complainant. After denial to release tubewell connection to one Naresh Kumar son of Shri Bal Ram, R/o Village Peerkhera who had applied for the same year 2010, he had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum in the month of March, 2017. The said complaint was allowed by the then Forum vide order dated 13.12.2017 and in compliance thereof, the Ops had released the tubewell connection in November, 2019 in case titled Naresh Kumar Vs. DHBVNL through its MD, Hisar. The Ops had never issued demand notice after deposit of security amount of Rs.20,000/-. Hence, this complaint with the prayed to direct the Ops to release the tubewell connection and to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment and Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.
4. On notice, Ops appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections quo maintainability , locus- standi, cause of action, estoppal as the application of the complainant for issuance of a tubewell connection has been cancelled on 20.8.2013 and the present complaint has been filed beyond limitation after seven years. Further, it is submitted that the complainant has suppressed the material facts and since the complainant is not consumer of the respondents/Nigam no consumer dispute is made out and there is no deficiency on the part of the Ops and the present complaint is false and frivolous.
5. On merits, it is submitted that after deposit of Rs.20,000/- , the Ops prepared the estimate amount of Rs.1,02,125/- as per estimate No.PNJ/853/2010-11 and issued the demand notice to the complainant to deposit the said amount and complete the other formalities for release of the electric connection. But, despite that the complainant did not turn up and did not comply with the demand notice and now the time limit has been expired and the application of the complainant has been cancelled and the security amount has been forfeited and the same is not refundable because as per Sales Circular/Instruction No.15/2014, the revival for release of connection is within three years from the date of cancellation. No revival shall be allowed thereafter and revival of such cases is within three years of cancellation and no revival shall be allowed thereafter as per Haryana Govt. Circular No.D8/2017 and the area of complainant falls under notified area where no tubewell connection can be released. Further, it is submitted that electric connection No.JP/0105 and JD 61/0084 were released as per their seniority and eligibility and the same were released to the respective consumers in a legal and lawful manner after observance of all the required formalities by the respective consumers. The rests paras of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
6. The complainant in order to prove his case has placed on record Ex.C1 the receipt of Rs.20,000/- and Ex.C2 is the application and agreement in respect of agriculture supply, Ex. C3 photo copy of affidavit of Balram as Surety and Ex.C4 is the demand notice of Rs.20,000/- and Ex.C5 is the undertaking given by complainant Raj Pal, Ex.C6 and C7 are copies of Jamabandis, Ex.C8 is a bill of Ghisa Ram, Ex.C9 is copy of order dated 13.12.2017 passed in consumer complaint No.69 of 2017, Ex.C10 is copy of Aadhar Card, Ex.C11 is a reminder application written by the complainant for installing tubewell connection to the AGM, Sub Division office, DHBVNL, Panjuana and Ex.C12 is the copy of Aksshajra.
7. On the other hand, in order to rebut the evidence of the complainant , the Ops placed on file affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Kumar, SDO as Ex.RW1/A. The Ops have also placed on file Sales Instruction No.10/2011 as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 is Sales Circular No. D-12/2012, Ex.R3 is copy of list of consumers, Ex.R4 copy of register mentioning therein the amount of Rs.1,02,125 of the complainant Raj Pal, Ex.R5 is an intimation by AGM, Sub-Divn. office, Panjuana to the complainant Raj Pal regarding tubewell connection, Ex.R6 copy of last notice to the complainant regarding depositing the second installment and other documents with the Ops, Ex.R7 is Sales Instruction No.134/2011, Ex.R8 is also Sales Instruction No.15/2014, Ex.R9 copy of letter by SE/Commercial to the Chief Engineer/OP, DHBVNL, Hisar regarding revival of cancelled applications for release of T/well connections, Ex.R10 is Sales Circular No.D-8/2017, Ex.R11 list of villages in Rania Tehsil.
8. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the case file carefully.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the ops despite deposit of security amount of Rs.20,000/- by the complainant on 24.12.2010 vide receipt No.162/3348 AP LD Centro No.460, the Ops have never issued any demand notice regarding remaining amount to the complainant and the complainant was and is still ready to deposit the remaining amount and to complete all the required formalities to release the tubewell connection to the complainant.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops contended that the after the deposit of Rs.20,000/- as security , the Ops prepared the estimate amount of Rs.1,02,125/- as per estimate No.PNJ/853/2010-11 and issued demand notice to complainant to deposit the said amount and complete other formalities for release of the electric connection. But despite that, the complainant did not turn up and did not comply the demand notice and hence, the application of the complainant has been cancelled and security amount deposited by the complainant has been forfeited. He has further contended that as per Sales Circular No.15/2014, the revival for release of connection is within three years from the date of cancellation and after three years, no revival is permissible and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
11. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties as well as documents placed on record by both the parties. From the perusal of pleadings as well as evidence of both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that it is an admitted case of both the parties that complainant had applied for the tubewell connection through his application in the month of January, 2009 and deposited Rs.1875/- with the ops vide receipt No. 116/ 3123 dated 07.01.2009. He had also complied with the demand of the ops to deposit security amount of Rs.20,000/- and he deposited security amount of Rs.20,000/- in the office of op no.3 on 24.12.2010 vide receipt no. 162/3348 AP LD Centre No.460 Ex.C1. But however, there is no evidence on file to prove that ops had ever issued demand notice to the complainant to deposit estimate amount to the tune of Rs.1,02,125/- as per estimate No. PNJ/853/2010-11 and there is no evidence on file that any notice of the cancellation of his application and forfeiture of his amount has been issued to the complainant.
12. It is pleaded by the ops that they had time of three years for revival of cancelled cases, but however, again the arguments as well as pleadings of the ops are not relevant and cannot be considered as no notice has ever been issued to the complainant for cancellation of his application or revival of the same and for fulfillment of any formalities by the complainant and to deposit amount of Rs.1,02,125/- and the conduct of the ops shows that they are negligent and in order to hide their deficiency of services on their part had only pleaded that they have issued demand notice to the complainant but he did not turn up to comply with the notice Ex.R6 as there is no such record on the file that Ex.R6 was ever received by the complainant or that has been sent to the complainant by any registered post or by hand or by any other mode. Therefore, arguments of learned counsel for ops regarding time period of three years for revival of application are again not tenable on record.
13. Learned counsel for ops has also contended that present complaint is hopelessly time barred as application of complainant was cancelled in the year 2013 and present complaint has been filed on 06.01.2020 after gap of seven years. On the other hand learned counsel for complainant contended that persons who had applied for tubewell connections after the complainant have been given connections after order dated 13.12.2017 passed by this Commission in a complaint No. 69 of 2017 titled as Naresh Kumar vs. DHBVN etc. and this fact came into notice of the complainant in the year 2019 and present complaint has been filed in the year 2020 within limitation period of two years. Since the persons who had also applied connections in the year 2010 i.e. after complainant have been given connections in 2019 after filing of consumer complaint and complainant was also waiting for his turn, therefore, it cannot be said that this complaint is barred by limitation.
14. In view of aforesaid reasons and findings, we allow the present complaint against the opposite parties. The complainant is directed to complete all the formalities and to deposit estimate amount of Rs.1,02,125/- with the ops within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter ops are directed to release tubewell connection to the complainant within a period of one month after deposit of this estimate amount and completion of other formalities by complainant. We also direct the ops to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 16.01.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
