BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No.61 of 2016.
Date of Instt.: 17.02.2016.
Date of Decision: 30.06.2017.
Tarsem Kumar, aged 40 years, son of Parkash Chand Aggarwal, resident of village Mehmedki, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad.
...Complainant
Versus
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through Executive Engineer,
Operation Division, DHBVN, Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Operation, Sub-Division, Sub Urban,
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Ratia Tehsil Ratia and
District Fatehabad.
..Opposite parties/Respondents
3.Smt.Laxmi Devi widow, 4. Salochna, 5.Asha Rani, 6.Meena Devi, 7. Neelam Ram- daughters of Parkash Chand Aggarwal, resident of village Mehmedki, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad.
… Proforma Respondents
Complaint U/S 12 of CP Act
Before: Sh. R.S.Panghal, Presiding Member.
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Sh.Sant Kumar, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Satpal Sethi, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has brought the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, called, the Act).
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the father of the Complainant had applied for releasing of tube well electric connection on 01.06.2005 for his agriculture land situated in village Mehmedki vide application No.AP-13411 and as per the instructions of the opposite parties had deposited the requisite security of Rs.245/- vide receipt No.119/28859 and also fulfilled all the formalities and had submitted all the relevant documents in the office of the OPs. The complainant being only son and legal heir of Sh.Parkash Chand (since deceased) is entitled to get released the tube-well connection in his name. He had also deposited the cost of transformer worth Rs.20,000/- vide receipt No.170/067116 dated 09.03.2006 as per direction of OPs and also ready to complete the other formalities, if any and also ready to deposit the miscellaneous charges if any. The complainant has also installed the tube-well and has made the necessary construction of Kotha etc. The complainant is being discriminated by the opposite parties because the persons, who had applied after the complainant, have been released tube-well connection. The opposite parties have been repeatedly asked to release the electricity connection to the complainant for his tube-well but all in vain as they have flatly refused to release the connection to the complainant. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and as such he is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the ops on account of mental agony and harassment and also release of tube-well connection. Hence, this complaint.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing reply wherein it has been submitted that complainant’s father had deposited security of Rs.245/- with the opposite parties for release of tube-well electric connection. The OP No.1 and 2 have denied that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was deposited by the complainant as cost of the transformer. It is further submitted that the above said amount of Rs.20,000/- was deposited by Late Sh.Parkash Chand, father of the complainant. However, the remaining formalities were not complied with by Late Sh. Parkash Chand inspite of the fact that he was asked many times by the Nigam. On inspection of the spot by the Nigam no bore-well (kotha) was found at the spot where tube-well was to be installed and no room (Khota) was constructed as per terms and condition of the Nigam. It is further submitted that the complainant has not disclosed in his complaint that when the father of the complainant expired and the complainant has not disclosed about the notice dated 17.06.2016 sent by his mother through Surkha Singh Chahal, Advocate. It has been further averred that complainant is trying to take undue advantage by misusing process of law of a time barred receipt/ application for tube-well connection by narrating false and concocted story. The complainant cannot be given the tube-well as the remaining formalities were not completed by the applicant/complainant. Finally a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made by the OP No.1 and 2.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit as Ex.CW1/A reiterating therein the facts as mentioned in the complaint and documents as Annexures C1 to C3. On the other hand, the opposite parties tendered in evidence documents as Annexures R1 to R 18.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. There is no dispute that complainant had applied for releasing the electric connection for his tube-well on 01.06.2015 after depositing requisite security amount of Rs.245/- vide receipt No.119 dated 01.06.2005 as is evident from copy of receipt placed on file as Annexure C1. According to the complainant, after completion of all the formalities, the opposite parties sent demand notice to the complainant and consequently complainant has deposited relevant documents as directed by the opposite parties. He has further pleaded that he has also deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- as cost of transformer vide receipt No.170 dated 09.03.2006 as directed and instructed by the opposite parties, the copy of which has been placed on file by the complainant as Annexure C2. However, the opposite parties have not released the tube-well connection to the complainant despite so many years. Therefore, the OPs have violated the instruction issued by the Government in this regard and the same amount to deficiency on the part of OPs. In support of his contention the counsel for the complainant has relied..
Upon the judgments cited as 2005(3) CLT (SC) Page 54, 1998(1) CLT Page 641, AIR-2008 Calcutta Page 47 2007(2) CLT Page 518, 2009(1) CLT-710, 2001(1) CLT-317, 1998(1) CLT-293.
7. On the other hand the counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 has rebutted the arguments advanced by counsel for the complainant and reiterated the submission made in the written version by OP No.1 and 2. It has been further contended that action of OP No.1 and 2 in not issuing the electricity connection to the complainant is perfectly in order and sustainable in the eyes of law as the complainant neither completed the necessary formalities nor gave reply to the notices issued by the OP No.1 and 2. It has also been contended by the counsel of OP No.1 and 2 that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred. Therefore the present complainant is liable to be dismissed.
8. It is not in dispute that the connection in question purportly applied on behalf of the complainant under the usual terms and scheme of the electricity department deposited the amount qua transformer, record of deposited amount has been placed on file. Certainly the electricity department i.e. OPs Nigam is legitimate authority duly constituted under the Power Department having the norms, instruction, Sales Circulars, Sales Manuals under the guidance of provisions of Indian Electricity Act in order to keep and maintain the various affairs of the Nigam, more particularly to provide the electricity connections to its proposed consumers, is also guided by its Sales Manual vide its instruction No.26 which provides time limit of three months for grant of connection of tube-well consumer and the same reads as under:-
INSTRUCTION NO.26
Time Limit for Grant of Connection
The connections to various categories of prospective consumers after the receipts of Test Report should be given within the time specified below:-
- Larger Industrial Supply and tube well consumer :3 months
- Medium and Small industrial Power Supply :2 months
- Domestic and Commercial Consumer :1 month
2. If any, however, be pointed and that the period specified above is the maximum and normally it should be possible to give connections in that very much shorter periods.
3. In view of the time limits specified above it should be ensured that the demand notices are issued carefully taking all the circumstances viz. availability of funds and material etc. into consideration.
In view of the provision of instructions referred above it can be construed that OP’s Nigam is bound to comply the same after receiving the security of Rs.245/- and an amount of Rs.20,000/- for transformer and completion of other formalities by the applicant/complainant.
The Hon’ble Apex court in case titled as Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs. Zora Singh decided on 11.08.2005 in Civil Appeal Nos.4910-4981 has held that “Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Section 79(1)- Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Sections 22 and 24- Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (g)-Electricity Board getting security deposits for supply of electrical energy without having made itself ready to supply electrical energy-Board failed to supply the electricity as per period stipulated in their regulations-Board unjustly enriched itself with the money deposited by applicants- It is deficiency of service- Board directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% and compensation of Rs.5000/-.”
9. Since there is no specific order regarding the cancellation of the application of the applicant nor the amount deposited by the applicant/complainant has been refunded as such in our opinion it will amount to continuing cause of action and the present complaint cannot be held to be time barred.
10 The complainant has approached this forum regarding his long standing grievance for not providing the electricity connection for his tube-well and had applied for the connection admittedly in the year 2005 and had deposited Rs.20,000/- on account of transformer cost in the year 2006 is moving from pillar to post for his legitimate agriculture being farmer.
11. In view of the legal and factual position as discussed above the opposite parties were bound to release the connection within stipulated period of three months but opposite parties have not only failed to release the connection but made excuse that connection could not be released due to non completion of remaining formalities by the applicant. In spite of completion of all requisite formalities, opposite parties have not released the connection which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on their part as the electricity is not an amenity but is a necessity. Consequently, we dispose of this complaint and direct the opposite parties to issue a demand notice to the complainant for fulfilling the remaining formalities. In compliance of the demand notice the complainant will complete the formalities. In case the formalities as per the demand notice are completed by the complainant in that eventuality the OP No.1 and 2 are directed to release the tube-well connection to the complainant as per the terms and conditions as applicable at the time of depositing the security. This order after completing the formalities by complainant should be complied within 45 days failing which the complainant shall at liberty to file execution under Sections 25 & 27 of C.P.Act, 1986. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:30.06.2017
(Ansuya Bishnoi) (R.S.Panghal)
Member, Presiding Member
