BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.: 176 of 2019
Date of Institution: 26.04.2019
Date of order: 13.11.2019
Satnam Chand son of Bashawa Ram, resident of village Sahidanwali, Tehsil and District Fatehabad
….. Complainant.
Versus
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad through its Executive Engineer, Operation Division, DHBVN, Fatehabad.
- Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Sub-urban, District Fatehabad.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Present: Sh. Ramanand, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Anil Solra, counsel for the OPs.
ORDER:
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties with the averments that he is resident of village Sahidanwali, Tehsil and District Fatehabad. The complainant has obtained a tubewell connection bearing no. DN-54-3541 in Khewat No.211 Khasra No. 38, Killa No. 14 situated in village Sahindanwali for agriculture purposes and he has been making payment of the electricity bills regularly. Therefore, he is consumer of the OPs.
2. It is further submitted that the bore of the abovesaid tubewell got failed on account of quality of water as the same was not fit for irrigation. Therefore, the complainant purchased 2 Kanals of agriculture land vide sale deed dated 16.11.2018 in village Sahindanwali for installing tubewell and requested the OPs for shifting the tubewell connection in the newly purchased 2 Kanals of agriculture land. The file for shifting the tubewell connection was submitted with the OPs and thereafter the Ops issued a letter bearing memo no. 1341 dated 9.4.2019 vide which the complainant was asked to obtain NOC from the joint owners of the Khewat wherein the tubewell was to be shifted whereas no such condition has been provided in the sale circular of the OPs. However, the OPs deliberately and in collusion with the other party has issued the abovesaid letter. The abovesaid letter is against the rules of the Nigam. On account of non-shifting of the tubewell connection the complainant has suffered huge loss as he could not irrigate crops.
3. It is further submitted that the abovesaid act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant and as such the complainant is also entitled for compensation. It is further submitted that the Ops may be directed to shift the tubewell electricity connection in question in Khewat No. 115, Khasra No. 51, Killa No. 1 situated in village Sahindanwali. Hence, the present complaint.
4. On being served OPs appeared through counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, jurisdiction, estoppel and concealment of true and correct facts etc. have been raised.
5. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the complainant had applied for shifting of the tubewell electricity connection bearing account no. DN-54-3541 from Khasra No. 38//14 comprising in Khewat No. 211 to Khasra No. 51//1min (2-0 Kanals) comprised in Khewat No. 115. However, the other co-sharers of the said Khewat No. 115 raised objections regarding transfer of the tubewell electricity connection vide their application dated 26.3.2019. Therefore, the complainant was asked by the answering OPs to submit the no objection certificate regarding transfer of the tubewell electricity connection. However, the complainant did not submit the no objection certificate of the other co-sharers and as such the electricity tubewell connection in question was not transferred. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of answering OPs in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Exhibit CW1/A, affidavit of Sham Lal Exhibit CW2/A, affidavit of Shish Pal along-with the documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-9 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajesh Kaushik SDO as Annexure RW1/A and the documents as Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-9 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents placed on record. In the present case, shifting of the tubewell connection in question has been declined by the OPs on the ground that the co-sharers of Khewat No. 115 wherein the tubewell connection is to be shifted have raised objections regarding transfer of the tubewell electricity connection vide their application dated 26.3.2019. Therefore, the onus was upon the OPs to prove that as per the sale circular or sale manual the no objection of the joint owners is mandatory in case where electricity connection has been applied for agriculture purposes in the land of joint owners. However, the OPs have not placed on record any sale circular or provisions of the sale manual to prove that no objection of co-sharer in a joint khewat is mandatory for seeking tubewell electricity connection for agriculture purposes. On the other hand, it is the case of the complainant that there is no provision in the sale circular for obtaining no objection of co-sharer in a joint khewat. In support of his contention, the complainant has also placed on record copy of sale circular no.D-4/2016 dated 9.2.2016 (Annexure Y), on the subject “simplified application for new connection, re-connection, extension of load, reduction of load and change of name”. Vide the abovesaid letter procedure for new connections, re-connection, extension of load, reduction of load has been simplified vide Annexure I and the applicant is required to submit 2 nos. documents as given in Annexure II. We have perused the Annexure 1 and Annexure II attached with sale circular no. D-4/2016 and from perusal of the same, it is revealed that there is no condition for obtaining no objection certificate from the co-sharers in case electricity tubewell connection is applied by a co-sharer in a joint khewat.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that declining of the request of the complainant in shifting the tubewell electricity in the present case is not in accordance with the sale circular or the sale manual of the Ops and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The present complaint is accordingly allowed and the OPs are directed to transfer the tubewell electricity connection of the complainant from Khewat No. 211, rectangle no. 38, Killa no. 14 to Killa no. 1, Khewat no. 115, Khasra no. 51 situated in village Sahindanwali. The OPs are also further directed for making a payment of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation and litigation charges. The present order be complied with within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the present order. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Dated:13.11.2019
(Raghbir Singh) President (Jasvinder Singh) District Consumer Dispute
Member Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
