BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
Complaint No. 67 of 2015
Date of institution:-18.5.2015
Date of decision:-25.5.2016
Jag Mehar s/o Sarup Singh r/o village Kurar, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind.
...Complainant.
Versus
DHBVN through the Sub Divisional Officer, OP Sub Division, Safidon, District Jind.
The Executive Engineer, OP Division, DHBVN Safidon, District Jind.
…Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
Present:- Sh. K.S. Gill Adv. for complainant.
Sh. Anil Sheokand Adv.for opposite parties.
Order:-
In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that complainant is agriculturist by profession and he applied for electricity connection for his tube-well vide application No.4588 and deposited a sum of Rs.3600/- vide receipt No.49672 dated 19.12.2007 towards requisite
Jag Mehar Vs. DHBVN etc.
…2…
security, a sum of Rs.20,000/- vide receipt No.61/052600 dated 18.5.2009 towards transformer charges and a sum of Rs.28,000/- towards cost of four poles with the opposite parties. The complainant already fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the opposite parties for releasing the tube-well connection. The opposite parties have not released the tube-well connection of the complainant. The opposite parties illegally and unlawfully released the tube-well connections to the juniors of the complainant. The complainant prayed for acceptance the complaint and opposite parties be directed to release the electricity tube-well connection as well as to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.
2. Pursuant to notice, the opposite parties have appeared and filed the written reply agitating that the complainant has got no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint; the complainant has not come with clean hands before this Forum, the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum and the complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it is contended that the Service connection order was issued on 6.5.2013 for tube-well connection of the complainant. But thereafter poles and other equipments were fixed for supplying the power to the tube-well of the complainant as per estimate but prior to supply of power the poles were removed from the earth. The complainant knowingly and intentionally neither got registered the FIR in this incident nor reported the matter to the Nigam. It is the prime duty of the complainant to ensure the safety of the poles and other equipments and in case of damages/losses caused by anti-social
Jag Mehar Vs. DHBVN etc.
…3…
elements he should have reported the matter to the police as well as Nigam but the complainant failed to do so. Without depositing the cost of spans as per revised estimate, the complainant is not entitled to get tube-well connection. All the other allegations have been denied by the opposite parties. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with cost is prayed for.
3. In evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1 and copies of receipt Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the affidavit of Sh. Om Parkash Mehta, SDO Ex. OP-1, copy of letter dated 3.3.2010 Ex. OP-2, copies of estimate Ex. OP-3 and Ex. OP-4, copy of challan form Ex. OP-5, copy of statement of Jagmer Singh Ex. OP-6, copy of self certification by the applicant Ex. OP-7, copy of labour charges Ex. OP-8, copy of detail of the material required for providing tube-well connection Ex. OP-9, copy of Service Connection Order Ex. OP-10, copies of sketch of site Ex. OP-11 and Ex. OP-12, copy of demand notice Ex. OP-13, copy of form of self load assessment Ex. OP-14, copy of application and agreement form Ex. OP-15, copy of payment made with application Ex. OP-16, copy of affidavit of Jag Mehar Singh Ex. OP-17, copies of under taking Ex. OP-18 and Ex. OP-19, copy of M.C.G Ex. OP-20, copy of agreement Ex. OP-21, copy of form of self load assessment Ex. OP-22, copy of self certification by the applicant Ex. OP-23 and copy of demand notice Ex. OP-24 and closed the evidence.
Jag Mehar Vs. DHBVN etc.
…4…
4. We have heard the arguments of Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had deposited the security amount as well as poles charges but the opposite parties have not released the electric tube-well connection. The opposite parties have admitted that the complainant had applied the connection and deposited the requisite amount and opposite parties have issued the Service Connection Order dated 6.5.2013. Thereafter, poles and other equipments were fixed for supply of power to the tube-well of the complainant as per estimate but prior to supply of power the poles were removed from the earth by anti-social elements. The opposite parties have alleged that cmplainant was the duty bound to report the matter to the police as well as to the Nigam but complainant failed to do so. So the complainant is liable to pay the cost of damages and labour charges again for fixation of poles and equipments for supplying the power connection to the tube-well of the complainant. But there is no evidence on file whether the complainant dismantled the pole in question nor any FIR was lodged by the Nigam against the complainant. If the complainant has not removed the poles so the complainant cannot be blamed for removal of the poles in question. It is the duty of the opposite parties whenever they have not restored the supply to the tube-well, they should have visited the spot and supply the electricity to the tube-well. The opposite parties have not made enquiry against the complainant or other person for dismantle the poles etc. The opposite parties have failed to prove these plea without any cogent evidence. The plea of
Jag Mehar Vs. DHBVN etc.
…5…
the opposite parties are tenable under the law and complainant is not liable to pay any pole charges or labour charges. The complainant has also deposited the whole amount and completed all the formalities for releasing the electricity tube-well connection. Hence, the complainant is entitled the relief.
5. In view of the above discussion, the opposite parties have not released the electricity connection of the tube-well of the complainant. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is established. We have no hesitation to allow the complaint. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and opposite parties are directed to release the electricity tube-well connection of the complainant after fixation the poles and equipments within 60 days. Failing which the opposite parties are directed to pay the simple interest @ 9% p.a. of the above said deposited amount from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 18.5.2015 till its realization. The opposite parties will also pay a sum of Rs.2,100/-(Rs. two thousand and one hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 25.5.2016
President,
Member Member District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind
Jag Mehar Vs. DHBVN etc.
Present:- Sh. K.S. Gill Adv. for complainant.
Sh. Anil Sheokand Adv.for opposite parties.
Arguments heard. To come up on 25.5.2016 for orders.
President,
Member Member DCDRF,Jind
20.5.2016
Present:- Sh. K.S. Gill Adv. for complainant.
Sh. Anil Sheokand Adv.for opposite parties.
Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
President,
Member Member DCDRF,Jind
25.5.2016
