Haryana

Jind

CC/15/74

Jasbir - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh K.S. Gill

25 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 68 of 2015
                            Date of institution:-18.5.2015
                            Date of decision:-25.5.2016
Jasbir 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.5122 and deposited a sum of Rs.3600/- vide receipt No.49680 dated 5.5.2008 towards requisite security, a sum of Rs.20,000/-  vide receipt No.117/053050 dated 
            Jasbir Vs. DHBVN etc.
                …2…
25.11.2009 towards transformer charges and a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards cost of one pole 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.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged and complainant prayed for accepting 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. On merits, it is contended that the Service connection order was issued on 7.5.2013 for tube-well connection of the complainant but at the time of issuing connection it was found that earlier estimate was prepared for tube-well connection only one span but at site the distance was found much more and there  required 2 spans. The Department has prepared revised estimate as per norms and standards of the Nigam  and opposite party No.1 sent a demand letter vide his office Endst. No.1134/C.F dated 31.7.2015 and intimated the complainant that as per revised estimate he is required to deposit Rs.12,500/- as cost of extra one span so that connection could 
            Jasbir Vs. DHBVN etc.
                …3…
be released. But the complainant has not deposited Rs.12,500/- which is the cost of spans as per estimate prepared by the Nigam which is necessary under the rules. Without depositing the cost of  spans as per revised estimate the complainant is not entitled to get tube-well connection. 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 31.7.2015 Ex. OP-2, copy  of document Ex. OP-3, copy of description Ex. OP-4, copy of labour charges Ex. OP-5, copy of sketch of site Ex. OP-6, copy of application and agreement form Ex. OP-7, copy of payment made with application Ex. OP-8, copy of affidavit of Jasbir  Singh Ex. OP-9, copy of Service Connection Order Ex. OP-10, copy of self load assessment Ex. OP-11, copy of letter dated 14.1.2011 Ex. OP-12, copy of challan form Ex. OP-13, copy of demand notice Ex. OP-14, copy of statement of Jasbir Singh Ex. OP-15 and copy of self certification by the applicant Ex. OP-16 and closed the evidence. 
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 completed all the formalities and deposited the whole of the amount including transformer and one pole  charges up to 25.11.2009 as per demand notice given by the opposite parties to the complainant but the opposite parties have not released the electricity 
            Jasbir Vs. DHBVN etc.
                …4…
tube-well connection. The opposite parties take the one plea that the Service Connection Order was issued on 7.5.2013 on the application of the complainant dated 5.5.2008 for giving the tube-well connection but at the time of issuing connection it was found that earlier estimate was prepared for tube-well connection of the complainant  only one span but at site the distance was found much more and there is requirement of 2 spans so the Department has prepared revised estimate as per norms and standards of the Nigam. The opposite party No.1 sent a demand letter vide his office Endst No.1134/C.F dated 31.7.2015 and intimated the complainant that as per revised estimate he is required to deposit Rs.12,500/- as costs of extra one span so that connection could be released but the complainant did not deposit the above said amount. 
5.    We have observed that the opposite parties have sent the letter for depositing the cost of the extra one span on 31.7.2015 during the pendency of the complaint. Whenever the Service Connection Order was issued in the year 2013 but the opposite parties remain kept mum for the period of more than two years. Why they have not sent the revised estimate immediately to the complainant  when they have very much knowledge regarding installation of second pole in the year 2013 why the complainant to file the present complaint in the Forum, in this way the complainant was dragged in unwanted litigation. There is no fault on the part of the complainant and the opposite parties have not released the connection since 2009 till day. We have no hesitation to hold that there is great deficiency in service on the part of the 
            Jasbir Vs. DHBVN etc.
                …5…
opposite parties and complainant is entitled the relief. The complainant is directed to deposit the cost of one pole i.e.  Rs.7000/- as original at the time of installation of pole during the year 2009. After depositing the   cost of pole by the complainant then the opposite parties  will release the electricity connection of the tube-well  of the complainant  within 60 days  from the date of  order of this Forum. The complainant has been deprived from the facility of tube-well to irrigate his agriculture land. So complainant is entitled the compensation along with litigation expenses. Although there is no evidence how much he has  suffered a loss regarding not irrigating the land. However,  in the interest of justice we assessed Rs.5,000/- (Rs. five thousand only) as compensation along with cost of litigation. 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                      Jasbir 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