BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

                                                           Complaint No.:341 of 2017.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 28.11.2017.

                                                           Date of Decision: 31.08.2018.

Shobraj son of Wadhawa Ram, resident of village Kalotha, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad.

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam limited, Sub urban Ratia, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad through its Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban Ratia, District Fatehabad.

                                                                             …Opposite Party.

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

Before:                Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                            Sh. M.K. Khurana, Member.

Present:                Sh.Amit Wadhera, counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Kuldeep Sharma, counsel for the opposite party.

ORDER:

                             The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party (hereinafter to be referred as OP) with the averments that he is an agriculturist and a permanent resident of village Kalotha, Tehsil Ratia District Fatehabad.  It is further submitted that he had applied for a tube well connection in the year 2008 and for the same he had also deposited an amount of Rs. 20,000/- with the office of OP vide receipt no. 80977 dated 27.11.2008.  Thereafter, in the year 2009 the complainant had also deposited a sum of Rs. 21,800/- vide receipt no. 28870 dated 6.12.2009 with the OPs. 

2.                          It is further submitted that the complainant had visited the office of OP many times for issuance of the tube well connection but till date the OP has not responded positively.  Moreover, the OP has also not provided any detail to the complainant regarding the number of connection which are going on and when turn of the complainant will come.  It is also further submitted that the OP has issued tube well connection even to those persons who were not in queue.  A legal notice dated 6.4.2017 was also issued to the OP but all in vain.  Rather the OP flatly refused to issue tube well connection in his fields.

3.                          It is further submitted that the abovesaid act on the part of OP amounts to deficiency in rendering service to him and he has further prayed that the OPs may be directed to issue tube well connection in his fields.  The complainant has also further prayed that OP may be directed for making a payment of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment.

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

5.                          In reply on merits, it is submitted that the complainant deposited security on 29.12.2016 and as such a demand notice was isused to the complainant.  Thereafter, an application dated 27.11.2008 was submitted by the complainant, wherein he had explained his inability to deposit the amount previously and on 27.11.2008 an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited by him.

6.                          It is further submitted that thereafter the JE of the OP department inspected the site tube-well and he found that neither the complainant has constructed a Kotha nor a bore was dug by him.  Thereafter, the OP sent a notice to the complainant for digging a bore and construct a Kotha and intimate the same to the OP, so that further action in the matter can be taken. However, the complainant did not visit the office.  Thereafter, a letter no. 3489 dated 14.12.2010 was issued to the complainant but no information was sent by him.  Thereafter, the security deposited by the complainant was cancelled by the OP on 18.7.2011.  Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of OP in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7.                          The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure C-6 alonwith documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-5.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Arun Kumar SDO as Exhibit RW1/A and the documents as Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4 and closed the evidence.

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 he had applied for tubewell electricity connection with the OP in the year 2008 and deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on 27.11.2008 vide receipt no. 80977.  Thereafter, the complainant also deposited a sum of Rs. 21,800/- with the OP on 16.12.2009.  However, till date electricity connection for tubewell has not been released to the complainant whereas tubewell connection has been issued to those persons who had applied after the complainant.  The complainant did not receive any communication of the OP regarding digging bore and construction of Kotha. 

9.                          On the other hand, it is the case of the OP that the complainant deposited the security for the tubewell connection on 29.12.2008.  Thereafter, a demand notice was issued to the complainant.  In response to the demand notice the complainant deposited Rs. 20,000/- on 27.11.2008. Thereafter, the JE of the OP inspected the spot and found that neither the bore for the tubwell was dug nor the Kotha was constructed by the complainant on the spot.  So, the complainant was asked to inform the OP after digging the bore and construction of Kotha so that further action can be taken by the OP.  However, the complainant did not visit the office of OP.  Thereafter, a letter bearing memo no. 3489 dated 14.12.2010 was sent to the complainant in this regard, but the complainant did not furnish any information to the OP in this regard. Thereafter, the OP cancelled the security of the complainant on 18.7.2011 and as such there is no deficiency on the part of OP in releasing the tubewell connection to the complainant.

10.                        In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prime question/issue involved in the present case is to whether any communication was sent by the OP to the complainant asking therein to dig the bore and construct a Kotha so that further action can be taken by the OP.  To prove the said issue the OP has placed on record a copy of letter bearing memo no. 3484 dated 14.12.2010 (Annexure R-2), wherein it has been mentioned that vide a previous letter the complainant was asked to dig a bore for tubewell and intimate the OP but nothing was reported by the complainant.  Vide Annexure R-2, the complainant was further asked to do the needful within 15 days and intimate the OP otherwise the application of the complainant will be deemed cancelled.  In view of the said letter, we are of the considered opinion that the OP have proved that a communication was sent by it to the complainant for digging the bore.  On the other hand, the complainant has failed to produce any document or evidence that in response to Annexure R-2, it has taken any action.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove that there is any deficiency on the part of OP in rendering service to the complainant.  The present complaint is accordingly 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:31.08.2018

                                                                   (Raghbir Singh)                                                                                  President                                (M.K.Khurana)                                            Distt. Consumer Dispute

Member                                      Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.