DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.330 OF 2014.
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 28.11.2014.
DATE OF ORDER: .25.03.2016
Parbhu Ram son of Shri Mohar Singh, resident of village Legha Bhanam, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
………Complainant.
Versus
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam having its Head Office at Vidhyut Nagar, Hisar through its Managing Director.
- The Executive Engineer, Sub Urban, DHBVN, Bhiwani.
- The Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Operation, DHBVN Jui, District Bhiwani.
………Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,
BEFORE: Shri Rajesh Jindal, President,
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member,
Present: Shri Balbir Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Rajesh Punia, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
RAJESH JINDAL, President:
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had applied for electricity connection for tubewell for better irrigation of his agricultural land vide application No. 11355 dated 23.03.1992 and deposited the initial fee of Rs. 280/- on 23.03.1992. It is alleged that he got completed all the formalities and Ops assured him that the connection shall be released on seniority basis at the earliest possible. It is alleged that the complainant visited to the office of Ops no. 2 & 3 with the request to release the electricity connection as per scheme introduced in the year 1992, since the complainant had causing financial loss for want of better irrigation as well as destroying of the digging of the well, but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. Opposite parties on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the seniority list was prepared by OP for releasing the connection under sale circular No. 80/2001 but on 12/13.05.2002 a fire incident took place in the office of OP no. 3 and all records of consumer clerk was brunt. It is submitted that in this regard a rapat No. 12 dated 13.05.2002 was got registered in the Police Post Jui. It is submitted that all concerned Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, which fall under Jui Sub Division were informed by the office of OP no. 1 vide letter No. 2384 dated 08.11.2002 and letter No. 2637/38/41/96 dated 17.12.2002 for affecting the Munadi in their villages that record of Sub Division DHBVNL Jui has been brunt and complainants who has applied for connections may kindly be deposited the duplicate complaint file alongwith original receipts and met with OP no. 1 for releasing their connections. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed against respondents with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure P-1 to Annexure P-5 along with supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the Ops have filed Annexure R-1 & Annexure R-3 alongwith supporting affidavit.
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. He submitted that the complainant applied for the electricity connection for Tubewell vide application dated 23.03.1992 and deposited Rs. 280/- on 23.03.1992. He submitted that the Ops has failed to release the electricity connection even after lapse of 22 years.
7. Learned counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complaint of the complainant is time barred and he has not come with true facts before this Hon’ble District Forum. He further submitted that a fire incident took place in the office of OP no. 3 and all record of consumers was brunt. A Rapat No. 12 dated 13.05.2002 was registered with the concerned police station. The opposite party vide letter dated 30.05.2002, 08.11.20002 and 17.12.2002 informed the concerned Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to affect the Munadi in their villages that the record of OP no. 3 has been brunt and the applicants were asked to deposit the duplicate file alongwith original receipts for releasing their connection. About 15 consumers deposited their duplicate file and their connection have been released as per sale circular no. 80/2001. The complainant never visited the OP nor deposited duplicate file alongwith original receipt etc.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record carefully. Now the complainant wants to get release the electricity connection for his Tubewell for which he has applied in the year 1992. Indisputably, the complainant did not apply to the OP in the year 2002 in response to the Munadi of OP, and did not deposit the duplicate file alongwith original receipt etc. The complainant kept mum for 22 years and now he has approached to this District Forum after about 22 years for the release of electricity connection for his tubewell. Considering the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant is time barred. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed being time barred with no order as to costs. The complainant shall be at liberty to apply to the Ops for electricity connection for his tubewell as per rules of the Nigam, if so advised. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:25.03.2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi),
Member.
