BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 72 of 2017.
Date of Institution: 04.05.2017.
Date of Decision: 27.02.2019.
Jaiveer son of Shri Chailu Ram, resident of village Kusalpura, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus.
- Sub Divisional Officer, DHBVNL, Loharu, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani
- Executive Engineer, DHBVNL, Urban Division, Bhiwani, District Bhiwani.
- Superintending Engineer, DHBVNL, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Nagar, Hisar through its Managing Director.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Present: Shri D. V. Lamba, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri B. S. Sheoran, Advocate for the OP.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had applied for tube-well connection vide application No.20454 AP dated 22.5.2013 under self financial scheme. It is alleged that the complainant has completed all the formalities and lateron a sum of Rs.33,980/- was deposited vide receipt No.93 book No.1220 dated 22.5.2013 with the OP No. 1. It is further alleged that on the demand of OPs, the complainant has further deposited Rs. 1,07,162/- vide challan No. 14203784 dated 7.1.2016. It is further alleged that the complainant has applied for the tube-well connection under AP category in the year 2013 i.e. 22.5.2013 under self financial scheme and the OPs have released the tube-well connection to the complainant on 8.12.2016 after a delay of 4 years. It is further alleged that the complainant is owner of 15 acre agricultural land and applied for tube well connection for irrigating his land, but the land of the complainant has not been sown without irrigation. It is further alleged that due to delay in releasing tube well connection, complainant has suffered huge loss of agricultural income. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complainant has to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, OPs filed contested written statement alleging therein that the complainant has applied for tube-well under AP category in the year 2013 under self financial scheme, but the complainant did not give consent for release of power connection, so the demand notice could be send to the consumer. It is further alleged that the complainant did not complete all formalities of the department and in this way negligence was found on the part of the complainant and OP knowingly deliberately did not delay the issue of tube-well connection of complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record duly sworn affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A and the documents Annexure C1 to C4 in evidence and closed the evidence.
4. Ld. Counsel for the OP has placed on record annexure R1 & closed the evidence.
5. We have heard both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the OPs. The only plea taken by the OPs is that the complainant did not give consent for release of power connection, so the demand notice could not be issued to him. This plea of the OPs is not tenable at all, because when the complainant has moved application for releasing of tube well connection by depositing of an amount of Rs.33,980/-, then there is not need to give separate consent for the release of tubewell connection. The application moved by the complainant for the release of tubewell connection is itself consent for the release of tubewell connection. Moreover, there are some facts which are admitted by both the parties. It is admitted that the demand notice was issued by the OPs after a long delay, whereas the demand notice must has been issued within a reasonable time after moving of the application by the complainant for the release of tube-well connection under self financial scheme. It is also admitted fact that the complainant has deposited Rs. 1,07,165/- on 7.1.2016, after issuance of demand notice by the OPs. It is also admitted fact that the tube-well connection has been released to the complainant on 8.12.2016. Therefore, it is clearly established on record that OPs have issued demand notice to complainant after a long delay. It is also proved on record that after issuance of demand notice by the OPs, the complainant has further deposited Rs.1,07,162/- on 7.1.2016 with the OPs. It is also proved on record that the tube-well connection has been released to the complainant on 8.12.2016. Thus, there is deficiency as well as negligency in service on the part of the OPs by not releasing the tube-well connection to the complainant for such a long period of about 4 years. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the OPs to provide defect free service to the public being the welfare state. It is clear that no contrary evidence has been produced by the OPs to rebut the case of the complainant. So far as the question of compensation is concerned, the complainant has failed to produce on record some cogent & convincing evidence to prove the loss suffered by him on account of loss of crops due to non-release of tube-well connection. The complainant has only placed on record copy of a Jamabandi for years 1998-99 of village Kushalpura, which shows that complainant is owner in possession of land measuring 108 Kanal 9 Marla (about 13½ acres) i.e. 1/3 share of land measuring 325 Kanal 8 Marla.
7. Therefore, in these circumstances the OPs are deficient and negligent in not releasing tube-well connection to the complainant for a long time of about 4 years. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs and the OPs are directed: -
i. To Pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of loss of income, mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
iii. To pay Rs.5500/- as counsel fee as well as litigation charges.
The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. In case of default, the OP shall liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on total amount as directed above vide clause No. i to iii from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of this order i.e. 27.02.2019. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 27.02.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
