Haryana

Rewari

CC/416/2012

Navin Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Ramphal Yadav

19 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,   REWARI.

 

                                                Consumer Complaint No:416 of 2012.

Date of Institution:    28.9.2012.

Date of Decision:      19.1.2015.

 

 

Navin Kumar son of Shri Virender Singh, resident of village Musepur, P.O. Musepur, Tehsil and   Distt. Rewari. 

 

 

                                                                         …....Complainant.

                                      Versus

 

1.  S.D.O. DHBVNL, Rewari, District Rewari.
2. Executive Engineer,  DHBVNL, Rewari, District Rewari.

 

 

                                                                 ….…Opposite Parties.

 

 

Complaint Under Section 12  of Consumer Protection Act

 

 

        Before: Shri  Raj  Kumar ………. …..………..PRESIDENT

                       Shri Kapil Dev Sharma…………………MEMBER

 

                      

Present :         Shri  Ramphal Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.

                       Smt.  Anita Yadav, Advocate for the opposite parties. 

 

                      

                                           ORDER

 

 Per  Raj Kumar President

 

                             In nutshell,  the    complainant  who had applied for an agricultural electricity connection with the opposite parties on 9.1.2009  by depositing a sum of Rs. 20,750/-  has not been given connection in spite of his repeated requests; hence this complaint.

2)                         In reply, it is averred that  a notice bearing  memo no. 1337 dated 16.9.2010  regarding deposit of balance amount and  for completing  other formalities  was sent to the complainant by speed  post but the same received back on 5.10.2010 with the remarks that no person in the name of ‘Naveen Kumar  son of  Virender Singh’ is residing in village Musepur.  Denying all other contents, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.

3)                         We have heard both the  counsel for the parties and gone through both oral as well as documentary evidence available on the file. 

4)                         It is not disputed that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties and he had applied for the agricultural electricity connection and he also deposited a sum of Rs. 20,750/-  on  9.1.2002.  The grievance of the  consumer is that despite  depositing    the aforesaid amount as asked by the opposite parties, no connection was released despite the fact that he had visited the office of the opposite parties several times and he was also compelled to serve a legal notice.    The spinal contention of the opposite parties for not releasing the connection is that   they are willing to comply the request of the complainant and to that effect a notice bearing memo no. 1337 dated 16.9.2010   was sent to the complainant by speed post.  The envelope was returned with the endorsement that ‘no person with the name of complainant is residing in the concerned village i.e. Village Musepur’.  The opposite parties have placed on record copy of envelope Ex. R-5 which bears an endorsement that no person with the name of complainant is residing at the given address.  The endorsement does not show the designation of the official nor it  bears the stamp of the post office .  The court cannot draw such a presumption from such report as it was the duty of the opposite parties to make fresh service by public notice or to inform the complainant physically, telephonically or by any other means.    The counsel for the complainant to rebut this evidence has produced the copy of original report procured from the post office ‘Mark-B’ which shows that on the relevant date no such postal parcel was received in the name of the complainant.  Thus, it emerges out that either the notice was not sent by the opposite parties or it got lost / mis placed somewhere as the fact remains that it did not reach the complainant nor the opposite parties tired to make fresh service.   Be that as it may, the   complainant very graciously   stated that he is ready to complete the formalities of the alleged demand notice / memo no.1337 dated 16.9.2010.  Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it a fit case if the connection is allowed to be released  on the basis of alleged demand notice.

5)                         Resultantly, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to release the agricultural electricity connection  within one month after the receipt of the copy of this order  subject to completing the formalities of the alleged demand notice dated 16.9.2010 as per rules .  Since the complainant has suffered a lot for the alleged deficiency of the opposite parties, he is allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- along with litigation expenses which are quantified at Rs. 2200/-  against the oppose parties.   

Announced

19^th Jan.2015.                   

                                                                    President,

                                                          Distt. Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Rewari.

 

                    Member, 

             DCDRF,Rewari.