BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

                                                           Complaint No.:8 of 2018.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 03.01.2018.

                                                           Date of Decision: 11.01.2019.

Sarwan Kumar son of Bachnu Ram son of Kodu Ram, resident of village Boswal, Tehsil and Distt. Fatehabad.

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

1.       Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad, Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Fatehabad.

2.       Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad.

                                                                             …Opposite Parties.

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Before:                Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.

Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.

Dr. Rajni Goyat, Member.

Present:                Sh.S.S.Marothia, counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Kuldeep Sharma, counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER:

                             The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) with the averments that  there is a tubewell connection bearing No.RNS2/1036 installed in land bearing Khasra No.13//22 situated in village Boswal, Distt. Fatehabad and the said tubewll connection has been released by the OPs in the name of Bachnu Ram son of Kodu Ram and now after death of Bachnu Ram, the complainant has been using the said electricity connection being his son and has been making a payment of electricity bills regularly and there is nothing due against the complainant. Therefore the complainant is consumer of Ops as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                          It is further submitted that the Ops are bound to give uninterrupted electricity supply to the complainant. It is further submitted that OP No.2 served a notice bearing memo No.2158 dated 13.11.2017in the name of Bachnu Ram on the basis of a complaint filed by Smt.Roshni Devi resident of village Boswal. The said notice has been served by the Ops without ascertaining true facts.

3.                          It is further submitted that the tubewell in question is installed in the land comprising in Khasra No.13//22 situated in village Boswal and prior to release of the connection and installation of the same in the land of the complainant  the Ops had satisfied themselves by going through the documents submitted before the Ops. It is also submitted that the complainant has already given reply to the above said notice through his counsel. The connection in question is an old one and the same was released by the Ops a long back.

4.                          It is further submitted that a false and flimsy complaint has been made by Smt. Roshni Devi on the basis of which said notice was issued by the Ops and on account of the same the complainant has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and humiliation and as such he is entitled for compensation. The complainant has further prayed that the Ops may be restrained from disconnecting the electricity connection of the complainant till disposal of the present complaint and also has prayed for awarding a compensation of Rs.25,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

5.                          On being served Ops appeared through their counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a joint written reply wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, concealment of true and correct facts, cause of action, locus-standi etc. have been raised.

6.                          In reply it is submitted that the tubewell in question was got installed by Bachnu Ram by concealment of facts and the same is not in the land of Bachnu Ram and the same is installed in the land of Roshni Devi. It is further submitted that a notice vide memo No,2851 dated 13.11.2017 was issued to the complainant vide which it was intimated that as per record of revenue department the tubewell in question is installed in the land which is not in ownership of the complainant. Vide the above said notice the complainant was also asked to submit documents regarding his ownership of the land wherein the tubewell in question is installed within a period of seven days. However, the complainant did not submit any document to the effect that he is owner of the land wherein the tubewell in question is installed. It is also further submitted that as per demarcation conducted by Tehsildar of Fatehabad the land in question was owned by Roshni Devi. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of Ops in rendering service to the complainant. The present complaint is without any merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.

7.                          The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Exhibit CW1/A along-with the documents from Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-20.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Bhajan Singh SDO as Exhibit RW1/A along-with documents as Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence of the OPs.

8.                          We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record.  It is the case of the complainant that a electricity tube- well connection bearing account no. RNS2/1036 has been installed in the land comprising in Khasra no. 13//22 in village Boswal in the name of late Bachnu Ram, father of the complainant.  Now after death of Bachnu Ram the said tubewell is being used by the complainant and there is nothing due against the complainant.  It is further the case of the complainant that on the basis of a complaint filed by one Smt. Roshni Devi, the OP no. 2 issued a notice no. 2851 dated 13.11.2017 to the complainant, vide which the OP no. 2 has directed to submit the document of ownership of the land wherein the tubewell in question is situated, within a period of 7 days.  It is further the case of the complainant that the abovesaid letter dated 13.11.2017 is against law and facts as prior to release and installation of the connection, the OPs had satisfied themselves regarding the ownership of the land.  The electricity connection in question was issued long back by the OPs.  It is further the case of the complainant that a false complaint has been made by Smt. Roshni Devi and the complainant has already filed reply of the abovesaid notice to the OPs.

9.                          On the other hand, it is the case of the OPs that tubewell in question has been installed in land comprising in Khasra no. 13//22/2/1/1 and the said land is not in ownership of the Bachnu Ram.  It is further the case of the OPs that demarcation of the land wherein the tubewell  connection has been installed, was got done by the concerned Tehsildar and as per report of demarcation the possession of Mr. Bachnu Ram was found unauthorized.  Therefore, a notice dated 13.11.2017 was issued by the OPs to the complainant to furnish the documents to prove that the land wherein the tubewell in connection has been installed is in the ownership of the complainant.  However, the complainant did not furnish any document.  It is further the case of the OPs that the notice issued to the complainant is perfectly in accordance with the instructions and guidelines of the Nigam and as per law the OPs are empowered to seek document of ownership from the consumers regarding the ownership of the land wherein the tubewell or the electricity meter has been installed.

10.                        Vide the present complaint, the complainant has challenged the letter dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure C-7) issued by the OPs.  Vide the abovesaid letter, the OPs have asked the complainant to submit the documents of ownership of the land within a period of 7 days wherein the tubewell in question has been installed.  We do not find any illegality or irregularity on the part of OPs in issuing the abovesaid letter.  Since the tube well for which the electricity connection has been issued by the OPs is installed in the land of which ownership is in dispute as such the OPs are competent to issue the abovesaid letter.  We do not find any deficiency on the part of OPs in issuance of the abovesaid letter to the complainant.  Moreover, in the present case the question of ownership of the land wherein the tubewell in question has been installed is involved.  The said issue cannot be decided in the summary proceedings by this Forum.  Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint is without any merits and as such the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                                   Dated:11.01.2019

      (Raghbir Singh)

  President

                                                                    District Consumer Disputes                      

                                                Redressal Fourm,Fatehabad

( Rajni Goyat)      (Jasvinder Singh)   

      Member                 Member