DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.11 of 2015
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 13.1.2015
DATE OF ORDER: - 21.5.2015
Dungar Singh son of Shri Bani Singh, resident of village Kairu, tehsil Tosham, district Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vidhut Nagar, Hissar, through its M.D.
- The Executive Engineer, S/U, Sub/Division, DHBVNL, Bhiwani.
- The Sub Divisional Officer, “OP” Sub Division, DHBVNL, Jui district Bhiwani.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member
Present:- Shri Kuldeep Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Dariya Singh, Advocate, for the respondents.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had applied for the tube well connection under AP category vide application No.14478AP dated 3.3.2011 and deposited a sum of Rs.22750/- being the security amount along with other misc. charges. Thereafter the respondents asked to deposit Rs.22500/- as MDS and the same was deposited vide book No.000643 dated 15.7.2014 under protest. The complainant alleged that he had also incurred huge amount for installation of pipe and other material but the respondents have failed to release the connection after the lapse of two years. The complainant further alleged that the respondents have issued a notice bearing Memo No.4345 dated 29.8.2013 directing to deposit Rs.58679/- under the modified scheme as per circular No.D-12/2012. The complainant further alleged that the respondents have again issued a notice bearing Memo No.9016 dated 27.10.2014 vide which they have directed to deposit the above said amount within seven days failing which file will be rejected. The complainant further alleged that the above said notices issued by the respondents are wrong, illegal, arbitrary and as such he is not liable to deposit the above said amount under the modified scheme. The complainant further alleged that he visited the office of respondents several times and requested to release the power connection for this tube well but they did not pay any heed. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. Respondents on appearance filed written statement admitting to the extent that the complainant has applied for tube well connection under sale circular No. D/2001 and deposited a sum of Rs.22750/- being the security amount along with other misc. charges. It is also admitted that the complainant had also deposited Rs.22500/- on account of MDS. It is submitted that as per new sale circular No.D12/2012 the complainant was directed to deposit the remaining balance amount of Rs.58679/- vide letters bearing Memo No.4345 dated 29.8.2013 and No.9016 dated 27.10.2014 but he did not comply with the demand notices and not deposited the amount as per scheme and as such he is not entitled to get release the tube well connection. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 & C2 Photostat copy of letters, Annexure C3 & C4 Photostat copies of payment receipts, Annexure C5 & P6 Photostat copies of sale circular No.D-12/2012 and D-80/2001 along with Annexure CW1/A affidavit dated 12.1.2015.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record Annexure R1 & P2 Photostat copies of sale circulars No. D-80/2001 and No.D-12/2012 along with affidavit dated 12.1.2015 Shri Rajdeep Singh, SDO, S/U, Sub Divn. Bhiwani.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. It is submitted that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.22750/- on 3.3.2011 and also inadvertently again deposited Rs.22500/- on 15.7.2013 with the Ops. The Ops are bound to release the AP connection to the complainant as per sale circular No.D-80/2001.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the contents of reply. It is submitted that as per sale circular No.D12/2012 the complainant is liable to pay Rs.1,01,179/- for the release of AP connection out of which he has deposited Rs.45250/- and thus the complainant is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.58679/- to the Ops only thereafter the Ops shall release the AP connection to the complainant.
In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties we have examined the relevant material on record and relevant portion of sale circular No.D-12/2012 is re-produced as under:-
- All the farmers/agriculturists who have deposited the full amount i.e. Rs.20,000/- plus span charges after issue of Demand Notice ; the connection shall be released at the old policy i.e. as per SC No.D-80/2001 on LT/HT as per the site conditions.
- All the farmers/agriculturists who have deposited only Rs.20,000/-, the connection shall be released on LT/HT as per the site conditions after getting the span charges deposited @ Rs.12500/- per span. However, the release of connection to such applicants will be regulated as per old policy i.e. SC No.D-80/2001.
8. In the instant case the demand notice was issued by the Ops to the complainant on 2.7.2013 much after issuance of sale circular No.D-12/2012. After issuance of said demand notice the complainant again deposited Rs.22500/- vide receipt dated 15.7.2013 with the OPs. From the careful perusal of the above said relevant portion of the sale circular, we are of the view that the case of the complainant falls under Clause 2 of the above mentioned sale circular. Accordingly we allow the complaint of the complainant and directed the Ops to treat the application of the complainant under Clause 2 as mentioned above of the sale circular D-12/2012 and to release the AP connection to the complainant. The amount already deposited by the complainant with the Ops, shall be adjusted by the Ops against the release of OP connection to the complainant, excess amount, if any already deposited by the complainant be refunded to the complainant. Resultantly the complaint of the complainant is allowed with no order as to costs.
9. The compliance of the order shall be made by the OPs within 30 days from the date of passing of this order. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 21.5.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anita Sheoran), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member.
