BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 263 of 2018
Date of Institution : 25.10.2018
Date of Decision : 28.05.2019.
Shingara Singh, aged 36 years son of Shri Karnail Singh, resident of village Lehngewala, PO Baragudha, Tehsil and District Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
- The Managing Director, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Hisar.
- Executive Engineer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Dabwali, District Sirsa.
- Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Kalanwali, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA……………….. PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER.
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER.
Present: Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant applied for a new tubewell electric connection with op no.3 vide application No. A&A 50235 date 21.1.2009. On 4.4.2011, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was got deposited by op no.3 from the complainant and op no.3 assured that said connection will be released to the complainant very shortly. That complainant visited several times to the ops no.2 and 3 and inquired about the fate of his application but he was put off with one pretext or the other. That in November, 2017, the complainant was verbally told by op no.3 that his application has been cancelled by the Nigam. It is further averred that thereafter on 16.11.2017, the complainant moved an application to op no.3 that he is ready to fulfill all conditions of the Nigam and to deposit any amount so required by the Nigam and requested to release the connection and in respect to this application, the op no.3 verbally told the complainant vide letter no.1777 dated 20.4.2018 written by SDO Op. S/Division, Kalanwali to XEN-cum- Nodal Officer, CGRF DHBVN, Hisar, the application of complainant has been cancelled. That due to non release of connection, he could not irrigate his land and he has suffered heavy losses. It is further averred that complainant visited the office of ops on many occasions and requested for the release of said electric connection and even also got served legal notice upon the ops on 23.8.2018 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, jurisdiction, complainant is not consumer and thus he has no cause of action and locus standi, complaint is time barred, estoppal etc. On merits, it is submitted that after applying for tubewell connection, the complainant never visited the office of ops. Rather the complainant was informed vide notice Memo No.642 dated 8.3.2013 to deposit further amount of Rs.37,000/- alongwith submission of documents within 15 days for installation of tubewell connection. Despite issuing the said notice, the complainant never visited the office of Nigam nor he deposited such amount nor he submitted the documents required vide aforesaid memo. Thereafter, the complainant was further informed vide memo No.119 dated 6.1.2015 to the effect that there is no tubewell bore in the fields of the complainant and he was intimated to visit the office of ops Nigam and to give reply of the said memo/ notice within 15 days. But the complainant failed to visit the office of ops and even no reply was given by complainant in the matter. Thereafter, as per rules of the Nigam, after expiry of prescribed period, the file of application of the complainant for tubewell connection was cancelled on 10.6.2015 and this fact was duly informed to the complainant. It is submitted that cancellation of application for tubewell connection was legal and as per rules and regulations of the nigam. The complainant was very much aware about cancellation of his application since June, 2015 and now has concocted a false story with malafide intention. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint made.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated as per averments in the complaint and has tendered documents i.e. copy of application and agreement form Ex.C1, application for revival of application Ex.C2, copy of letter dated 20.4.2018 Ex.C3, copy of legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C7 and reply to legal notice Ex.C8. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Pushpender Kumar Sharma, SDO Ex.R1 who has deposed and reiterated as per averments made in the written statement, reply of legal notice Ex.R2, copy of letter dated 12.12.2017 Ex.R3, copy of letter dated 3.12.2017 Ex.R4, copy of memo no.642 dated 8.3.2013 Ex.R5, copy of letter dated 20.4.2018 Ex.R6, copy of application Ex.R7, copy of estimate Ex.R8, copy of letter dated 6.1.2015 Ex.R9 and copy of document regarding details of applications Ex.R10.
6. Admittedly, the complainant had applied for grant of tubewell connection in his fields in year 2009 and on 4.4.2011, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was deposited by him. As per allegations in complaint, complainant approached many times to the ops for release of tubewell connection but later on he came to know that his application has been cancelled. On the other hand, it is proved on record that a demand notice was issued to complainant on 8.3.2013 to deposit requisite amount which was not deposited by the complainant. Thereafter, another letter was written on 6.1.2015 by which complainant was intimated that there is no tubewell bore in the field of complainant but complainant did not give any reply as a result of which on 10.6.2015 application of complainant was cancelled. On 16.11.2017 complainant moved an application alongwith his affidavit for revival of his application, but however, said application was also dismissed by the Superintending Engineer vide letter Ex.R4 on the ground that there is no provision for revival of cancelled application of tubewell connection after expiry of limitation period given in the demand notice.
7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has not produced any provisions under which application for tubewell connection can be revived after expiry of more than five years. So, the complaint of the complainant does not appear to be maintainable and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:28.05.2019 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
