Haryana

StateCommission

A/1223/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOHD.ASLAM - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.NEGI

07 Nov 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                First Appeal No.1223 of 2016

                                                                Date of Institution:14.12.2016

                                                                    Date of decision:07.11.2017

 

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Litd. Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula, through its M.D/Chairman.
2. Executive Engineer (O.P), Division, U.H.B.V.N.L, Yamuna Nagar.
3. S.D.O, (O.P), Sub Division, U.H.B.V.N.L, Bilaspur, Tehsil Bilaspur, Yamuna Nagar.

…Appellants

                                      Versus

Mohammad Aslam son of Baaj Mohammad, resident of village Sawabari, Post Office Dayalgarh, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                      …Respondent

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:     Mr.B.S.Negi, Advocate counsel for appellants.

                   None for respondent.

 

                                                ORDER

 

Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

 

1.      It was alleged by the complainant that he had applied for tubewell connection with opposite parties (in short ‘O.Ps.’) vide application No.35339/AP and deposited security amount of Rs.285/- vide receipt No.03147 Book No.275 dated 12.02.2006. He also deposited Rs.900 vide receipt No.039634 Book No.48 dated 07.06.2007. It was further alleged that thereafter, O.Ps issued  demand notice for depositing Rs.20,000/- and the same were deposited vide receipt No.039634 Book No.57 dated 08.06.2007. Thereafter, O.Ps again demanded Rs.25,000/- and the same was deposited vide receipt No.134 Book No.084489 dated 29.05.2015. It was further alleged that he was assured by O.Ps that connection would be releases shortly, but, they did not release connection due to which he suffered mentally as well as monetarily. It was clear negligence and deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.

2.      As per opposite parties, complainant applied for tubewell connection an final amount has been deposited on 29.05.2015, but, due to heavy pendency of tubewell connections, a seniority list was maintained by O.Ps.  It was further submitted that they issued Sale Circular No.U-20/2011 vide which tubewell connection were to be released on the basis of seniority list framed after completion of all formalities, deposit of final estimated amount, verification of test report and availability of material. It was further submitted that as per seniority list, complainant was at Serial No.16, so when his turn would come, they would release connection. As such there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar  (in short “District Forum”) partly allowed the complaint and directed as under:-

“Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the O.Ps. to release the tubewell connection of the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to get Rs.5,000/- as compensation. The O.Ps. are further directed to pay Rs.1100/- as cost of litigation expenses to the complainant.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments of only learned counsel for appellants are heard because nobody appeared on behalf of respondent and the matter is pertaining to year 2016. File perused.

6.      As per letter furnished today, connection in favour of complainant has already been released. Previously the connection was not released because seniority list was maintained as per sale circular No.U-20/011, so it cannot be presumed that there was any fault on the part of appellants/O.Ps. Hence, impugned order qua payment of compensation and cost of litigation is hereby set aside. Appeal is disposed off accordingly.

7.      Statutory amount of Rs.3,075/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

November, 07^th, 2017             Urvashi Agnihotri                    R.K. Bishnoi

                                                Member                                  Judicial Member

                                                Addl. Bench                            Addl. Bench