Haryana

Jind

CC/15/165

SMt. Bhartho Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Manjit Singh

24 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 140 of 2015
                            Date of institution:-1.10.2015
                            Date of decision:-27.6.2016
Smt. Bhartho Devi w/o Sh. Ved Singh resident of village Kheri Masania, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind.

                                       ...Complainant.
Versus
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Superintending Engineer, Circle, Jind.
Sub Divisional Officer, OP Sub Division, DHBVN, Narwana, 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. Manjit Singh Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. B.S. Lather Adv. for opposite parties. 
            
Order:-
        In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that complainant had applied for tube-well connection under application No.32220 AP dated 17.11.2010 and deposited a sum of Rs.2,000/- as security and other charges vide receipt No.15150/327 dated 17.11.2010 with the 
            Smt. Bhartho Devi Vs. DHBVN etc.
                        …2…
opposite party No.2. The opposite parties have not issued demand notice for the agriculture power connection of the complainant. The complainant visited the office of opposite parties several times and requested to issue the demand notice for the agriculture power connection but the opposite parties did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant. Due to non-release of A.P. connection to the complainant, she is suffering great hardship and is not able to irrigate her fields. There is no fault of any kind on the part of the complainant and she has fully complied with the directions issued to her and has deposited the security and other charges to the opposite parties. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed  to release the A.P. connection immediately as well as to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- 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  therein that the complainant has got no   cause of action and locus standi  to file the present complaint; the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum and the complainant has not come with clean hands before this Forum and has suppressed the true and material facts. On merits, it is contended that the opposite parties issued demand notice to the complainant vide No.1032 dated 7.7.2011 but the complainant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of said demand notice within three months of the date of issuance and thus the application of the complainant has been 
            Smt. Bhartho Devi Vs. DHBVN etc.
                        …3…
rejected under the law.  Thus after expiry of three months of the said demand notice, as per S.C. No.U-20/2011 the application of the complainant for taking electricity connection automatically rejected under the law. It is alleged that at the same time one another demand notice was issued to Hari Ram s/o Munshi who complied with the same and electricity connection was already issued/released to him. 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 her own affidavit Ex. C-1,  copy of receipt Ex. C-2, copy of  notice Ex. C-3, copy of letter Ex. C-4, copy of application dated 22.4.2015 address to C.M. Haryana Ex. C-5,  copy of application send to S.E. Ex. C-6, copy of letter Ex. C-7, copy of application Ex. C-8 and  copy of letter of C.M. window dated 22.4.2015 Ex. C-9 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the copy of  demand notice Ex. OP-1 and copy of document Ex. OP-2 and closed the evidence. 
4.    We have  heard Ld. counsels of  both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. Ld. counsel for complainant argued that complainant   deposited a sum of Rs.2,000/- as security and other charges vide receipt No.15150/327 dated 17.11.2010 with the opposite party No.2 for issuing demand notice for the agriculture power connection but the opposite parties have not issued the same. Complainant also moved the application to Superintending of Engineer of Circle,  Jind for releasing the connection because  she has deposited the security amount. She further alleged that no demand notice has been issued to the 
            Smt. Bhartho Devi Vs. DHBVN etc.
                        …4…
complainant inspite of the repeating requests to the Department. It is clear from  Ex.C-7 that on the complaint of complainant, the  SDO  concerned had sent a letter to the Executive Engineer stated that they sent the demand notice to the complainant vide memo No.1032 dated 7.7.2011 S.D.O has further written in letter that as per complaint of the complainant the said demand notice had not been received by her and requested  to the XEN to re-issuing/approval for duplicate demand notice. The complainant has also sent another letter to the SDO and alleged that she never received any demand notice on 7.7.2011 vide memo No.1032. The version of the opposite parties is that they have sent the demand notice  No.1032 dated 7.7.2011 to the complainant but the complainant failed to comply with the instructions given in the demand notice and as per instructions/rules of the Nigam, the application of the complainant for supplying electricity connection stands automatically rejected because the complainant has not complied with the instruction of the demand notice within stipulated period of 3 months.   Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 
5.    After hearing Ld. counsel of both the parties and also gone through the record placed on file, the controversy between the parties that the complainant has not received the demand notice and as such he does not comply with the formalities of demand notice. On the other hand, the version of the opposite parties that they have sent the demand notice to the complainant and complainant has failed to complete the formalities of demand notice within stipulated period and 
            Smt. Bhartho Devi Vs. DHBVN etc.
                        …5…
the application for providing electricity connection has been automatically cancelled. The question arises before us whether the demand notice has been received by the complainant or not? From the perusal of the document Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-9 it reveals that the demand notice has not been received by the complainant and he made several complaints to the SDO, Hon’ble Chief Minister, Haryana and Superintending Engineer but no action has been taken by the opposite parties. The version of the opposite parties is not believable  that they have sent the demand notice to the complainant and the complainant received the same. Mere to file the photo copy of dispatch register Ex. OP-2 is not sufficient to say that they have sent the demand notice to the complainant because the opposite parties have failed to provide any document/evidence from which it may be established that they sent the demand notice to the complainant. The opposite parties have also failed to file any document by which mode i.e. registered post, through special messenger, courier  has sent the demand notice to the  complainant.  In our view, it is a primary duty of the opposite parties to send the important document such as  demand notice to the complainant through registered post or through special messenger. 
6.    In these circumstances discussed above, The opposite parties have failed to prove that they have sent the demand notice to the complainant. Hence, we have no hesitation  to hold that the opposite parties have  deficiency in providing the service to their consumers. So, the present complaint is allowed with cost. The opposite parties are directed to issue the demand notice for the agriculture power 
            Smt. Bhartho Devi Vs. DHBVN etc.
                        …6…
connection of the complainant on the previous terms and conditions i.e. at the time of apply for tube-well connection i.e. on 7.11.2010 within one month from the date of receiving the certified copy of order and  after compliance of the demand notice by the complainant then opposite parties will release the AP connection to the complainant within two months. Cost is assessed Rs.5,000/-(Rs. five thousand only). Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 27.6.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

   

        Smt. Bhartho Devi Vs. DHBVN etc.
                        
Present:-    Sh. Manjit Singh Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. B.S. Lather Adv. for opposite parties. 
            
        Arguments heard. To come up on 24.6.2016 for orders.

                                President,
            Member             Member        DCDRF, Jind
                                 21.6.2016

Present:-    Sh. Manjit Singh Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. B.S. Lather Adv. for opposite parties. 
            
         Order not ready. To come up on 27.6.2016 for orders.

                                President,
            Member             Member        DCDRF, Jind
                                 24.6.2016

Present:-    Sh. Manjit Singh Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. B.S. Lather Adv. for opposite parties. 
            
         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint  is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
                                President,
            Member             Member        DCDRF, Jind
                                 27.6.2016