Haryana

StateCommission

A/446/2015

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANSA RAM - Opp.Party(s)

AMARDEEP HOODA

12 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      446 of 2015

Date of Institution:      13.05.2015

Date of Decision :       12.08.2015

 

1.      Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar, through its Manager, Director.

 

2.      The Executive Engineer, S/U, Sub Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Bhiwani.

 

3.      The Sub Divisional Officer, ‘OP’ Sub Division Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Atela Kalan, District Bhiwani.

          Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Mansa Ram s/o Sh. Ram Sarup, Resident of Village Atela Kalan, Tehsil Ch. Dadri, District Bhiwani.

Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Amardeep Hooda, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Mahabir-brother/representative of respondent-complainant.

 

O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated February 18^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Bhiwani in Complaint No.488 of 2013.

2.      Mansa Ram-Complainant (respondent herein) applied for electric connection for his tubewell to Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘DHBVNL’)-Opposite Parties and deposited necessary expenses as per the Sales Circular applicable at that time. The opposite parties issued Demand Notice dated October 22^nd, 1988. The complainant complied with the requirement of the Demand Notice but still connection was not released. He complained for non-release of connection to the Sub Divisional Officer (Op.), Sub Division, DHBVNL, Kaithal, on October 25^th, 1991. In reply, the complainant received memo No.529 dated 27.04.1992 (Annexure A/1) stating therein that seniority had not been disturbed and also confirmed the receipt of Test Report etcetera and assured to release the connection as and when the transformer was replaced. In the year 1999, the complainant again requested for release of connection. The connection not being released, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      Notice being issued, the opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply raising plea of limitation. It was further stated that though the complainant applied for connection on July 3^rd, 1988, however, demand notice was issued on March 13^th, 1990 and the complainant not complying the demand notice, his application was cancelled. It was denied that the opposite parties ever assured to release the connection on change of transformer. The opposite parties denied having issued any memo in the year 1992.

4.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties as under:-

“1.     To release the tubewell electricity connection within two months on the basis of old security.

2.      To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

3.      To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.

The compliance of the order shall be made within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order”.

 5.     It is not disputed that the complainant had applied for tubewell connection in the year 1988. Though, the opposite parties in their reply have denied the issuance of any memo dated 27.04.1992 or having assured the release of connection as and when the transformer was replaced, however, the entire contention of the opposite parties is contrary to the record. Annexure A/1 is a memo issued by Assistant Executive Engineer of the Opposite Parties (appellants) wherein he has clearly admitted the receipt of Test Report and confirming that no applicant junior to the complainant in the seniority had been released any connection, with further assurance that the connection would be released as and when the transformer was replaced. Even vide letter dated May 24^th, 2013 (Annexure A/4), the Executive Engineer of opposite parties again admitted the issuance of memo dated 27.04.1992 (Annexure A/1) as well as the receipt of the Test Report etcetera and further assuring to release the connection from the existing transformer of 63 KVA. Thus, the entire defence of the opposite parties is not only contrary to the record but appears to have been taken to deny the right of the complainant.

6.      In view of the above, it is established that the District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint by taking into consideration the evidence on the record.

7.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.6100/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 12.08.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL