NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4605/2009

UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

OM PARKASH - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ARVIND NAYAR

10 May 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4605 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 05/08/2009 in Appeal No. 131/2005 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD.Through its Sub Divisional Officer, Operatio Sub Division, MatanhailJhajjarHaryana ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. OM PARKASHR/o Village BithlaJhajjarHaryana ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 10 May 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Heard leaned counsel for petitioner. Factual matrix are that respondent applied for release of electricity connection for running his tubewell as early as on 26.06.1993, following which security deposits too was made by respondent with petitioner-Corporation. For about 8 or 9 years there was no breakthrough in the matter and it was in the year 2001 when petitioner came out with a scheme of ‘Tatkal connection’ vide their sale circular No.51/2001, which required aspirants of electricity connection to deposit Rs.20,000/- as security money and Rs.7,000/- per span. -2- That respondent was called upon by petitioner–Corporation to make deposit of aforesaid amount. Since respondent did not respond to call made by petitioner, his application was taken out from file for connection and it is stated that he had lost his seniority. Thereafter door of consumer fora was knocked by respondent and District Forum on analysis of pleadings of parties directed petitioner to provide tube-well connection to respondent within one month. When matter was carried in appeal, State Commission too in view of willingness of respondent to deposit aforesaid security money and also Rs.7,000/- per span, directed petitioner-Corporation to provide electricity connection. It is not without significance to find that even though respondent approached as early as in June,1993, for about 7 or 8 years electricity connection was not released by petitioner and when aforesaid circular came into vogue that they asked respondent to deposit security money. Anxiety of petitioner was that if electricity connection was released to respondent, entire seniority list would be disturbed. Least said is better for inaction on part of petitioner-Corporation in not releasing electricity connection for about 7/8 years. -3- No fault can be found with order of State Commission. Revision petition, in the circumstances is dismissed with no order as to costs.


......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER