BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 287 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 26.9.2014.
Date of Decision: 05.05.2015.
Ram Chander son of Shri Nand Lal, resident of village Ramlawas, tehsil Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus.
- The Managing Director, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Nagar, Hisar through X-en, DHBVNL, Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani.
- Executive Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Bhiwani.
- SDO, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jhoju Kalan.
- Smt. Choto Devi wife of Shri Ram Chander, resident of village Ramlawas, tehsil Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani.
…...Respondents.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Sitting: - Shri B.D.Yadav, President,
Shri Balraj Singh, Member,
Present: Sh. M.S.Mehran, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. K.R.Sangwan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.
Sh. M.S.Parmar, Advocate for respondent No.4.
O R D E R
The case of the complainant in brief, is that 50 years ago his father along with other co-sharers have taken an electricity connection bearing No.RB-51/0583 in the name of Rama Nand son of Shri Sohan Lal. The complainant alleged that all the share holders had taken separate tube well connection and in the partition proceedings the above said connection came to his share since, 2004. The complainant further alleged that Rama Nand had expired about 14-15 years ago and he has been using the above said connection and has been making payment of electricity charges regularly. The complainant further alleged that on the application of respondent No.4 i.e. Choto Devi wife of late Shri Rama Nand the respondents have permanently disconnected without giving any notice to him along with other co-sharers. The complainant further alleged that he visited the office of respondents several times and requested to restore the power supply but they did not pay any heed. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint.
2. Respondents No.1 to 3 on appearance filed separate written statement alleging therein that Shri Ram Nand son of Shri Sohan Lal, resident of village Ramalwas was account holder of tube well connection bearing No.RB51/0583 who expired on 6.1.1997 and as per affidavit filed by his wife Smt. Choto Devi the above said connection was disconnected vide PDCO No.64/945 dated 8.9.2014 on her request being legal representative of deceased Rama Nand. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondents and as such, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Respondent No.4 on appearance also filed separate written statement alleging therein that her husband Shri Ram Nand was account holder of above said tube well connection bearing No.RB51/0583 who has expired on 6.1.1997. It is submitted that she had moved an application along with affidavit dated 8.9.2014 to the officials of the Nigam regarding permanently disconnection of above said connection. It is further submitted that the complainant has no concern whatsoever with the above said connection and prayed for dismissal of this complaint with costs against the answering respondents.
4. Both the parties filed their duly sworn affidavits to prove their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.
6. A perusal of copy of Jamabandi for the year 2011-12 of village Ramarvas reveals that father of the complainant owns only 1/330th share in the total land measuring 1 Kanal 19 Marlas and as per version of Ld. Counsel for the respondents the complainant is owner of the land measuring 3.5 Sq. Yards only. Admittedly, tube well connection was in the name of husband of respondent No.4 and there is no evidence that other co sharers had also contributed for obtaining connection. It is alleged in Para No.3 of the complaint that all the share holders had taken separate tube well connection and in the partition proceedings the disputed connection came to the share of complainant since, 2004 but no evidence has been produced regarding the partition proceedings and in the absence of such evidence the complainant cannot claim any right. All the electricity bills have been issued in the name of Shri Rama Nand who was husband of respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 has been making payment of bills after the death of her husband. Respondents No.1 to 3 has rightly disconnected the power supply on the application of respondent No.4. It is the sweet-will of respondent No.4 to retain or not to retain the tube well connection. Ld. Counsel for complainant referred document Annexure A-42 to A-44 vide which all the share holders claim to be joint owners of the connection whereas the complainant claims in Para No.3 of the complaint that all the share holders have taken separate connections. The electricity bills Annexure A-2 to A-41 are also in the name of Rama Nand husband of respondent No.4. The land record Annexure A-1 does not find mentioned the name of complainant. Respondents No.1 to 3 also support the case of respondent No.4. In view of the circumstances mentioned above the complainant cannot be termed as consumer in this case and thus there is no need to issue notice to other share holders prior to issuance of disconnection order. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. The complainant has also moved an application for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents but in view of the findings of foregoing paragraph the contempt application has no merit and the same also stands dismissed.
Certified copy of the order be sent to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 5.5-2015. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Balraj Singh)
Member.
