Haryana

StateCommission

A/1221/2017

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEHA - Opp.Party(s)

N.K.BAJAJ

27 Aug 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                  

                                                First Appeal No.           1221 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution:       12.10.2017

                                                Date of Decision:         27.08.2018

 

 

1.      Sub Divisional Officer, O.P Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam Limited, Kalayat.

 

2.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula.

…..Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Neha wife of Shri Amit Kumar, resident of Indira Colony, Kalayat, District Kaithal.

…Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

 

Present:               Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for the appellants

                             Shri Amit Kumar, husband of Neha-complainant.

 

                              

O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Sub Divisional Officer, UHBVNL, Kalayat and another-opposite parties (for short, ‘UHBVNL’) are in appeal against the order dated August 21^st, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby it directed the UHBVNL to release the domestic electric connection to Neha-complainant on completion of the formalities as required by UHBVNL and Rs.50,000/- compensation. 

2.      The complainant wife of Amit Kumar applied for domestic electric connection on April 03^rd, 2017 vide receipt Mark C-1.  UHBVNL dismissed the application on April 19^th, 2017 (Mark C-2) on the ground that there was an outstanding amount of Rs.1,71,236/- in the name of Inder, father in law of complainant.  It is the case of the complainant that her father in law had purchased the plot on February 04^th, 1997 and the amount outstanding against him was qua the said premises whereas the plot of which the complainant had constructed a house for which the domestic connection has been applied for was purchased in the name of her mother-in-law on June 08^th, 2012.  The house of Inder is situated in Street No.1 whereas the present house is situated in Street No.5.  The complainant had nothing to do with the outstanding amount of her father-in-law, a fact which is not in dispute.    Thus, no interference in the impugned order is called for. The appeal is dismissed.

3.      The statutory amount of Rs.1000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification, in accordance with the rules.

 

Announced 27.08.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President