BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint no. 465/2018. Date of instt. 18.12.2018. Date of Decision: 31.01.2020
Sarjeet Singh S/o Shri Ram Chander Resident of village Bhuthan Kalan, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
..Complainant.
Versus
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through Executive Engineer, Operation Division, DHBVN, Bhattu Road, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
..Respondent/OP.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President. Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Argued by: Sh. Suraj Kiran, Advocate for complainant. Sh. Sanjay Ahuja, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that the complainant is owner in possession of agricultural land situated in village Bhuthan Kalan District Fatehabad and in the year 2004 he submitted an application for issuance of the electricity tube-well connection with the Ops for the above said land.
2. It is further submitted that after submitting the application on the direction of OP the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.455/- as security on 11.10.2004 vide receipt no. 45 book number 81159.
3. It is further submitted that after depositing the security amount the complainant visited the office of OP several times but the tube-well electricity connection has not been issued by the Ops and no further action in this regard has been initiated. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of OP on 01.11.2018 and made a request for issuance of tube-well electricity connection. However, the OP flatly refused for issuance of the connection. Thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 06.11.2018 to the OP through his counsel, but all in vain.
4. It is further submitted that above said act on the part of Op in not releasing the tube-well electricity connection to the complainant amounts to deficiency on its part in rendering service to the complainant. The complainant has further prayed that the present complaint may be accepted and the OP may be directed for issuance of a tube-well electricity connection to the complainant along with compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs.2,00,000/- on account of financial loss and Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges. Hence, the present complaint.
5. On being served, the Ops appeared through its counsel and filed a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, concealment of true and correct facts and estoppal etc. have been raised.
6. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the complainant had applied for releasing the tube-well electricity connection in the year 2004 and on the application of the complainant the estimate for releasing the electricity connection was to be prepared and the intimation was given to the complainant number of times to deposit the requisite amount for releasing the tube-well electricity connection and to comply all the formalities. However the complainant was not interested to get release the tube-well electricity connection and has not deposited the requisite amount and thus did not fulfil the formalities. It is further submitted that the complainant has filed the present complaint on false facts and even if complainant is ready to comply all the formalities and to deposit the requisite amount of estimate for getting release the tube-well electricity connection as per new circular than the Op is ready to release the tube-well electricity connection. All the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied and it has been further submitted that the complainant never visited the office of Op for depositing the estimate amount for releasing the tube-well electricity connection. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of the OP in rendering service to the complainant and the present complaint is without any merits and as such liable to be dismissed.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Ex. CW-1/A and the documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand Sh. Rajesh Kaushik, SDO Operation tendered in evidence his affidavit as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence of the Ops.
8. We have duly heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents placed on record.
9. It is the case of the complainant that in the year 2004 he had submitted an application that the OP for issuance of tube-well electricity connection and an amount of Rs.455/- was deposited by him as security. It is further the case of the complainant that after depositing the security the complainant visited office of the OP several times regarding issuance of the tube-well electricity connection but no action was taken by OP in this regard. Thereafter the complainant visited the office of OP on 01.11.2018 and again requested for issuance of the above said connection but the OP flatly refused to issue the same. Thereafter on 06.11.2018 a legal notice was also given but the same was not replied by the OP.
10. On the other hand, it is the case of the OP that the complainant after making application for the tube-well electricity connection did not deposit the requisite amount for releasing the tube-well connection and did not comply all the formalities despite intimation given to the complaint by the OP number of times. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of OP in rendering service to the complainant. It is further the case of the OP that in case the complainant is ready to comply all the formalities and to deposit the requisite amount of estimate for getting released the tube-well electricity connection the OP is ready to release the tube-well electricity connection as per new circular.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion the release of tube-well electricity connection to the complainant has been denied by the OP on the ground that despite giving intimation a number of times the complainant did not deposit the requisite amount and did not comply the formalities. In view of the above, the onus is upon the OP to prove by cogent and convincing evidence that intimation was given to the complainant for depositing the requisite amount and complying all the formalities. However, the OP has not placed on record any cogent convincing or credible evidence or any communication sent to the complainant in this regard. Therefore the OP has failed to prove that any notice or communication was sent by it to the complainant for completion of the above said formalities. The OP has also not placed any document on the record to prove that the security deposited by the complainant has been cancelled and thereafter returned to the complainant. The OP has also not placed any document on the record to prove as to whether any decision has been taken by the Ops regarding the application of the complainant. We are therefore of the opinion that the cause of action in the present case is continuance.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of OP in rendering service to him. The present complaint is accordingly allowed and the Op is directed to release the tube-well electricity connection of the complainant as per the circular which was applicable at the time of his submitting application. A copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of cost as provided in the rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum: Dt. 31.01.2020
(Jasvinder Singh) (Raghbir Singh) Member President DCDRF, Fatehabad.
